Quote :

"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. "

Closely related, yes. However, I expected you to address my assertion that your previous examples were "NOT examples of "good liberal intentions gone bad," and that they were in fact bullshit. This latest attempt is no different.

So the "liberal intention" was to bar military recruiters on the basis of the discriminatory policy "Don't Ask Don't Tell." I think the only difference between you and I is that I think that's justifiable. In this case, the liberals lost. Oh well. It's not like their intention backfired in any way, shape or form.

More importantly, you have not yet produced one example of "Liberal Intentions Gone Wrong." Your examples have instead been partisan, if not outright lame, attempts to make fun of liberal causes. I think I could do a better job finding reasonable examples than you could

9/23/2007 4:40:44 PM

^ Wrong. And my search has obviously not been exhaustive--I have a life outside TSB that requires much of my time. There will be more on this and other topics, though, never fear.

9/23/2007 11:52:08 PM

of course.

you get pwnt one place, then just disappear and start a new bullshit thread elsewhere.

debating with you is something like playing Wack-a-Mole.

9/24/2007 12:44:19 AM

Just so we're clear, hooksaw, your response to my previous post... which includes a refutation of your latest bullshit example of "liberal intentions gone bad".... is this:

Quote :

"^ Wrong. "

How delightfully succinct. Let me guess, your follow-up is "I'm right"?

Quote :

"And my search has obviously not been exhaustive--I have a life outside TSB that requires much of my time."

Oh thank God. I was beginning to worry that you were devoting your entire life to the pursuit of the perfect liberal bashing thread on TWW. I can rest easy now knowing that these pathetic, ill-founded, and factually deficient works of partisan hackery only consume a fraction of your daily activities. It's comforting to know that you're in fact not slaving away at your computer 24 hours a day searching for the perfect example of liberal idiocy in between yells to your mother for more hot pockets and requests for her to empty out your bedpans so that you can triumphantly show all of TWW the error of our political ways...

Thank you... thank you for putting my mind at ease...

9/24/2007 10:05:14 PM

^ And you're above all that "partisan hackery," right? And what party is it that I'm supposedly doing all this for again? Please STFU.

9/25/2007 12:51:55 AM

Quote :

"between yells to your mother for more hot pockets"

its stuff like this, why I'll never leave.

9/25/2007 2:47:52 AM

Quote :

"^ And you're above all that "partisan hackery," right? "

Yes, because I EXPLAIN my positions and defend them logically using reason and cited sources. You on the other hand NEVER defend your positions after refuting them. You instead move on to your next bullshit example in the hopes that no one will take the time to objectively assess it.

Quote :

"And what party is it that I'm supposedly doing all this for again?"

Not applicable. Your examples are "partisan" because they are specifically designed to counter, thwart, or otherwise mock a specific political group with absolutely no regard for objectivity. You manipulate the facts to fit idealogy, as opposed to adjusting your ideology based on the facts.

I on the other hand have some semblence of objectivity. I made it exceptionally clear that MoveOn.org's ad in the NY Times was a deliberate example of partisan hackery. I denounced it as such. So no, I'm NOT partisan. Fuck you for insinuating otherwise.


Alright, so you got ONE good example of liberal intention gone wrong. My bad

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 12:13 PM. Reason : If that last post isn't Soap Box Quotes worthy, I don't know what is...]

9/25/2007 12:11:22 PM

Quote :

"some semblence of objectivity"

9/25/2007 1:35:25 PM

^ Congrats, you can spell. Now if you could only respond to any fucking refutation of the inane bullshit you've posted in this thread.

Damnit you are so fucking worthless.

9/25/2007 3:21:05 PM

Quote :

"Erios So the "liberal intention" was to bar military recruiters on the basis of the discriminatory policy "Don't Ask Don't Tell." I think the only difference between you and I is that I think that's justifiable. In this case, the liberals lost. Oh well. It's not like their intention backfired in any way, shape or form. "

I would guess that hooksaw didn't for one second believe that the true intention of the liberals was to ban the recruiters because of the discriminatory policy "Don't Ask Don't Tell.".
The real reason is that they see the recruiter's as an extension of the Bush's administration, and more generally because they "loath the military" to quote a famous lib from back in the day. This is why it was ironic that their ploy to remove the recruiters by some BS argument based on Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell." policy fell flat on its face in the courts.

But, that is really beside the point, the point is that the liberals are only for free speech so long as it is the kind they agree with.

Continue with your hook-bashing...

9/25/2007 11:40:30 PM

so-called "liberal opposition" to college recruiters doesn't have anything to do with them "loathing" the military (untrue), or that it's an "extension" of the Bush Administration (tangential and irrelevant).

the institution of the US military is much larger than any presidential administration -- past, present, or future.

the "liberals" problem is that every single club, group, potential employer, or recruiter for any organization whatsoever on a college campus has to adhere to strict non-discrimination rules --- with the glaring exception of the US Military.

To play up the fact that Clinton Administration ordered the current discriminatory policy into effect is just a diversion. The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy was NOT a Clinton initiative. it was an initiative of the Joint Chiefs, that Clinton approved as a realistic comromise, at significant cost to his political credibility in his own party. One can argue that this played a part in the Republican takeover of 1994, because many in Clinton's core base were demoralized by what they perceived as being "sold out" to the moderate/conservatives. Many Democrats sat home in November 2004, and this is one of a few major reasons why.

so, yes, of course "liberals" are going to naturally have problems with a discriminatory organization being given prime real estate at campus functions.

I, however, am one liberal who doesn't have an issue with this. The federal government gives these colleges hundreds of millions of dollars in funds. If an institution is going to accept the feds' money, then they are going to have to play by the feds' rules. sorry. that's all there is to say. If you have a problem with the feds' rules, go work on getting them changed.

I will admit, that the fact that we are currently embroiled in a war of dubious legality and extremely slim moral legitimacy, only heightens the agitation. So perhaps it lends some motivation to the cause.

In any event, one can be against the war, and the leadership who sold it to us, without being against the institution responsible for carrying it out.




[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 12:39 AM. Reason : ]

9/26/2007 12:35:18 AM

^^ BINGO! It was simply a means to an end.

BTW, the ROTC can have indirect positive effects, too. For example, the Music Department at State was built around the ROTC--FYI.

[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 3:03 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2007 3:00:24 PM

^^ forgive me if my memory fails me, was there an organized effort to remove the recruiters from universities before Bush's war ?

[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 7:47 PM. Reason : . ]

9/26/2007 7:47:06 PM

^^^ I thought Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz planned the war in Iraq--I mean, many of you claimed that Bush was too stupid to have done it. So, the war was NOT a Bush initiative, right?

Turnabout's fair play, you danged disingenuous so-and-so. (By request, I'm launching my new kinder, gentler put-downs. You like?)

[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 8:06 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2007 8:06:10 PM

a put down is a put down, genius.

and no matter what kind of sugar coating you want to put on them, they don't belong in any discussion so long as you want to be taken seriously. unfortunately, i get the distinct impression you don't give a damn about being taken seriously. that's too bad, because you seem like an intelligent person. ah well

9/26/2007 9:49:23 PM

Quote :

"The real reason is that they see the recruiter's as an extension of the Bush's administration, and more generally because they "loath the military" to quote a famous lib from back in the day."

Ah, some famous liberal from back in the day said it. Got it.

Don't try to pass that ambiguous bullshit on liberals. Cite a source or admit that was a partisan cheap shot.

9/26/2007 10:12:25 PM

I thought everyone knew that Clinton said that when he was dodging the draft back in the 60s...it was all over the news in 91 during all the presidential campaigning

9/26/2007 10:55:04 PM

Quote :

"a put down is a put down, genius. and no matter what kind of sugar coating you want to put on them, they don't belong in any discussion so long as you want to be taken seriously. unfortunately, i get the distinct impression you don't give a damn about being taken seriously. that's too bad, because you seem like an intelligent person. ah well"

jwb9984

Thanks, man! I'm glad you like the new hooksaw.

9/26/2007 11:11:52 PM

^^^ha ha ha, fished in, fished in...

9/26/2007 11:52:12 PM

Quote :

"No shit If you're driving a little car and get hit by a big one, you will fair worse Meaning that if our primary goal was the lowest number of fatalities, we could: a) All drive big cars b) All drive small cars And if our secondary goal is spending less money and reducing dependence on foreign oil, then our only choice is you're a dumbass."

WINNER!!!

seriously, winner.

9/27/2007 4:05:38 AM

you see, this is why I drive a bulldozer to work

9/27/2007 11:05:33 AM

Quote :

"mathman:forgive me if my memory fails me, was there an organized effort to remove the recruiters from universities before Bush's war ?"

not that i can recall.

there were some isolated anti-war protests during the buildup prior to Desert Storm in '91, but nothing like the organized and widespread opposition to the swashbuckling Babylonian Adventures of GWB and Pals.

its true, there is a dynamic between the two issues (anti-war and anti-discrimination). The immediacy of opposition based on discrimination has coalesced with the intensity of opposition to the war. unfortunately, it takes a lot to get people off their asses. the combination of these two moral outrages finally hit the breaking point.

a number of variables, though. The public (american and world) was generally supportive of the war against Iraq to liberate Kuwait. There was a Coalition of some 500,000 multinational troops, with a clear objective and exit strategy, and war was truly the last option exercised after almost a year of intense diplomatic actions.

also, there just wasn't such widespread societal tolerance/acceptance of homosexuals, and the corresponding distaste for discrimination against them, back in the late 80s and early 90s. No one really talked about Gay Rights in the mainstream media. There was a lot of homophobia, implied and overt, in American society.

Quote :

"hooksaw: I thought Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz planned the war in Iraq--I mean, many of you claimed that Bush was too stupid to have done it. So, the war was NOT a Bush initiative, right?"

what are you talking about? how was that addressed to me? Obviously GWB is The Decider. He decides things. Certainly, the neocon PNAC crowd you mentioned were the architects, but GWB is still the CEO of BushCo.







[Edited on September 27, 2007 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ]

9/27/2007 12:43:29 PM

i'm going to go out on a limb here, and venture a guess that an ensuing response will contain rolly eyes

9/27/2007 12:49:57 PM

Quote :

"GWB is still the CEO of BushCo."

^^ So, WJC was not the CEO of ClintonCo?

BTW, how do any of you liberals explain this?

Marines Denied Permission To Film Commercial
On The Streets Of San Francisco

Quote :

"SAN FRANCISCO, Sep. 24, 2007 (KGO) - New York said 'yes,' but we said 'no.' Why were the U.S. Marines denied permission to film a recruiting commercial on the streets of San Francisco? San Francisco is, once again, the center of a controversy over how city leaders treat the U.S. military. This time, it involves an elite group of Marines who wanted to film a recruitment commercial in San Francisco on the anniversary of 9/11. The tension has been building in the two weeks since the city turned away members of the Silent Drill Platoon, and it boiled over Monday afternoon at a meeting of the San Francisco Film Commission."

Quote :

"'It's insulting, it's demeaning. This woman is going to insult these young heroes by just arbitrarily saying, "no, you're not going to film any Marines on California Street," said Captain Greg Corrales of the SFPD Traffic Bureau. Captain Greg Corrales commands the police traffic bureau that works with crews shooting commercials, TV shows and movies in the city. He's also a Marine veteran and his son is serving his third tour of duty in Iraq. He says Film Commission Executive Director Stefanie Coyote would only allow the Marine's production crew to film on California Street if there were no Marines in the picture. They wound up filming the empty street and will have to superimpose the Marines later. 'Ms. Coyote's politics blinded her to her duty as the director of the Film Commission and as a responsible citizen,' said Captain Corrales. We asked Stefanie Coyote why they're not allowing the Marines to shoot on California Street. She wouldn't answer our questions. At today's Film Commission meeting, she said she wouldn't let the Marines film because of rush hour. 'Traffic control was the issue,' explained Stefanie Coyote. However, the Marines would have just shut down one lane of California Street for a few minutes at a time, and Captain Corrales points out the Film Commission often approves shoots for rush hour. 'If they want to get the job done, they find a way to get it done,' said Captain Corrales."

Quote :

"The city's treatment of the Marines is making many people angry, from local conservatives like Christine Hughes with the San Francisco Republican Party who told us, 'it's an embarrassment. I'm a fourth generation San Franciscan and I don't even recognize my city right now.' To current and former Marines like Vince Rios, a Vietnam veteran. 'I'd like to say, "does your mother know you're doing this? And if so, is she proud of you for that?"' said Vince Rios. 'The city of San Francisco made a statement saying, "we don't like the war" by shutting down the troops. I don't think that was the right thing to do,' explained Eric Snyder, a U.S. Marine. 'I wish to hell she would leave her politics at home and take care of the city business and the bridge business on an even keel basis,' said Mike Paige, a Korea veteran. The Marines also applied for permits to shoot on the Golden Gate Bridge that same morning, but were turned down because of similar traffic concerns. The end result -- the crew didn't film the Marines in San Francisco at all. They had to go to the National Park Service for permission to shoot in Marin overlooking the bridge and at Kirby Cove. 'Golden Gate National Recreation Area is steeped in military tradition and we're honored to be a part of their continued military traditions so we're glad that we could accommodate the shoot,' said Amy Brees with the National Park Service. Captain Corrales and several other Marine veterans came to the Film Commission Monday afternoon. They see this as just the latest insult along with the city blocking the USS Iowa from docking here, banning the junior ROTC from high schools, and trying to ban the yearly Blue Angels air show [emphasis added]. 'This -- a slap in the face of every veteran and every parent of men and women who are doing their duty -- is shameful,' said Captain Corrales. The Marines we spoke with also make the point that the city allows street demonstrations, anti-war protests and other events which snarl traffic, such as Critical Mass. They still don't understand why the Marines got turned away."

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&id=5673526

(Supersedes rolly eyes until further notice.)

9/28/2007 12:19:15 AM

I prefer the smiley face.

At the very least, it makes it seem like you're making a subtle point.

9/28/2007 12:31:04 AM

^ You have a firm grasp of the obvious.

9/28/2007 12:42:57 AM

i prefer the rolly-eyes. you made it your signature trademark, man. im tellin ya dude, you OWN those rolly-eyes. do you know how many people here wish they could own something that cool??? think about the kids, here. what will they have now??? Oh, the humanity.

anyhow, this kinder gentler hooksaw schtick makes you look like a pussy.

9/28/2007 1:34:31 AM

^ From the outset of hooksaw's kindness campaign, I predicted that before it was over, some here would be begging for me to cuss them out, post rolly eyes, or some such. I will not be baited and I will not waiver.

(Supersedes rolly eyes until further notice.)

9/28/2007 1:46:02 AM

pussy

9/28/2007 1:50:29 AM

^ I am stronger than you.

9/28/2007 1:58:06 AM

pussy pussy puss puss puss

9/28/2007 12:46:07 PM

I do not see a problem w/ private universities denying access to military recruiters. They are private so they should have the right to decide who comes on. I kinda equate this with the Boy Scout not letting gay people or atheists in their orgainzation. If anything they are probably saving the recruiters time and $$$. I do not think too many people paying $30K to attend say an ivy league school is just going to be like "fuck it, i'm tired of college and my progress towards getting a degree that will earn me $texas after graduation. I think I will enlist instead."

On the other hand public universities should be open since they are taking government money and are "public" so should be open access for all.

[Edited on September 28, 2007 at 12:53 PM. Reason : l]

9/28/2007 12:52:21 PM

^ As soon as those private universities stop receiving federal dollars, it won't be a problem.

9/28/2007 10:35:48 PM

Yeah, it sure would be nice to stop everything that we personally don't like from getting federal money of any kind.

9/28/2007 10:43:33 PM

^ Um. . .I'm not sure what you are saying, but I was responding to the following quotation:

Quote :

"I do not see a problem w/ private universities denying access to military recruiters. They are private so they should have the right to decide who comes on."

HUR

So, I posted this:

Quote :

"As soon as those private universities stop receiving federal dollars, it won't be a problem."

To recap, those private universities probably could ban military recruiters from coming on their campuses--if they didn't accept federal money. They can't have it both ways.

9/28/2007 11:25:30 PM

What federal law states that a university needs an ROTC program?

This isn't the same as single-sex schools.

9/29/2007 12:20:17 AM

they dont. but many universities want the federal dollars, and there is also a certain amount of prestige.

9/29/2007 1:09:53 AM

^^ I'll gladly give up all the ROTC programs in exchange for returning to a system of government that has it's size and scope constitutionally delimited.

[Edited on September 29, 2007 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2007 3:00:16 PM

I just thought of a good liberal intention gone bad...

"trying to have an intelligent debate with hooksaw

10/1/2007 8:36:37 AM

No.


That's just a waste of time.


For anyone/everyone.

10/1/2007 9:14:43 AM

^^ and ^ Thanks.

10/1/2007 11:58:49 PM

pussy

10/2/2007 2:16:32 AM

On the topic of speech codes on campus, I think it's a ridiculous idea.

I also want to know what people are saying that's so offensive.

And none of these anonymous reports to some website either.

Whenever I hear a kid complain about some liberal professor grading their papers unfairly, I wanna know what the fuck they are writing. "Poor people are poor because they are lazy. Women belong in the kitchen. I have a big dick." It's actually really easy to get away with those ideas if you explain them and if you acknowledge the other side of the issue.

10/2/2007 3:49:21 AM

Quote :

"What federal law states that a university needs an ROTC program? This isn't the same as single-sex schools."

The Morrill Act of 1862. It doesn't state a university needs an ROTC program. It just states that a land-grant institution (like NC State) must offer military training. In the past it was compulosory for all male students.

Quote :

"^^ I'll gladly give up all the ROTC programs in exchange for returning to a system of government that has it's size and scope constitutionally delimited."

Well, ROTC is kind of putting me through college, so I'm gonna say no. Oh, and by the way, we in the military try to stay out of politics, so it'd be a little nice for you not to mix us in with politics. Please don't get the wrong idea about us. We're not all a bunch of jack-booting jingoistic robots - no, we have to swear an oath to the Constitution, to defend it from being trampled on. The military is an integral part of our country, and it has made some of our finest citizens into who they are. And that's something San Fransisco has forgotten, in reading this article. They were our most important Pacific Coast port in World War II.

But I digress. What would I know?

10/2/2007 9:22:50 AM

Quote :

"so it'd be a little nice for you not to mix us in with politics"

We have a war in Iraq with no other real purpose than political reasons and the redistribution of wealth and you are afraid of what the liberals would do politically?

10/2/2007 9:30:00 AM

Afraid? No. I'm just saying they shouldn't be complicating the situation in the first place.

10/2/2007 9:33:06 AM

wait, I'm a liberal ?

I'm not really for getting rid of the ROTC, I just think it's funny that Boone would
actually make an argument to the effect of "well it is not even in the constitution so it shouldn't be a function of government".

Frankly, if I were king for a day I'd fire most of the government modulo the military, courts and necessary regulatory agencies. Social Security, social and corporate welfare, foreign aid, other government freebies... most of which are tenuously if at all listed in the constitutional description of our government. I sincerely doubt that Boone would suggest any serious amount of reduction
in federal social spending, I have seen him defend it again and again.

10/2/2007 10:33:23 AM

^I didn't call you one. I also don't hover over Soap Box, so I was only responding to what I read.

10/2/2007 1:35:15 PM

Industry examines SUVS and side crashes

Quote :

"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety gave marginal scores in side-impact tests of 2008 versions of the Chevrolet TrailBlazer, Jeep Grand Cherokee and two SUVs built by Nissan Motor Co. — the Pathfinder and Xterra without optional side air bags. In similar side testing, the Toyota 4Runner and Pathfinder and Xterra models equipped with side air bags received top marks of good in the side testing. The Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer received the second-highest rating of acceptable"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_bi_ge/crash_tests
So enjoy your false sense of security while driving around in your gas guzzling land-tank!

10/11/2007 7:36:40 AM

Fallout Continues from Spitzer's Licensing Plan

Quote :

"NEW YORK, NY November 01, 2007 —The fallout over Governor Eliot Spitzer's controversial drivers' license plan has put many of New York state's top politicians in awkward positions. WNYC's Elaine Rivera reports: Spitzer's evolving plan to give undocumented immigrants valid drivers' licenses has politicians of all stripes fuming, stumbling and shifting. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who was slammed by immigrant groups for opposing the governor's original plan, cautiously endorsed Spitzer's decision to go to a three-tiered license system. Senator Hillary Clinton was strongly criticized by her Democratic rivals during Tuesday night's presidential debate for her evasive response on the issue. And several state legislators who supported his original policy to give everyone the same license say they feel disappointed and betrayed."

http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/88131

11/1/2007 1:08:04 PM