SuperJerk

LOL.... Even Bob Dole would trounce Hillary Clinton. Funny you mention Bob Dole in relation to Hillary. She's basically going to have the same effect he did, as in she'll raise enough money and get enough endorsements to scare every other decent candidate out of even running, but her complete inability to connect with the average voter will keep her from ultimately winning. Forget the fucking baggage this woman has for a second...has anyone ever seen this woman's campaigning ability? She sounds like she's running for student council.

Downhill from "Queering doesn't make the world work."?

I think the whole notion of a Hillary/Guiliani match-up is a NY-based media mastubation fantasy and has no basis in political reality.

The general public might not have, but I think most historicans will agree with you. Some have said the executive branch couldn't function properly as long as the bulk of its time was being spent dealing with the investigation into Watergate.

That would probably be the solution in an ideal world, but wouldn't get much support from the Middle East as a whole. Turkey (one of our biggest allies) will never approve of a separate Kurdish state in Northern Iraq, because Turkey's own Kurdish population would want to separate from Turkey as well. Iran would probably absorb or effectively control any sort of Iraqi Shiite state, which wouldn't be in our interests, either. I fear doing just what we thought was in our interests is what got us in this mess in the first place. The only way peace can ever happen is by finding a solution where everyone (not just the west) benefits. Iraq itself is a western invention created purely for the convenience of World War I era world leaders.

naive adjective 1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous. 2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous: She's so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics. 3. having or marked by a simple, unaffectedly direct style reflecting little or no formal training or technique: valuable naive 19th-century American portrait paintings. 4. not having previously been the subject of a scientific experiment, as an animal.

...

Even during the 2002 Cngressional elections, when Bush's approval ratings were in the mid-60% range, the Republicans couldn't get more than 53% of the vote. Do you really think the Republicans can get the votes of 85% of the country? This is too idiotic not to be a gimmick post.

Today's the decisions day....cave into Luca$'s and buy the damn things or hold out. I'm leaning towards the big cave. The guy I share my classroom with disagrees. But he owns Star Wars on VHS. In fullscreen. As he put it: "I'm not missing anything from the extra stuff on the sides, and if the tape wears out I can buy another one." ... Knock-knock. Who's there? 1998. I started doing the research to convince him that DVD > VHS and widescreen > fullframe, but then I ran into this exciting article from five years ago... http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.24.112921.289.html Fucking hell???? I've had a DVD player since 1999. Of course its better. I hope whoever wrote that article went blind so they could never watch another movie again, because it sounds like they don't deserve to. There was also this 2001 gem... http://www.fims.uwo.ca/newmedia/newmedia20...Issue1/dvd.html ...which featured these magnificent quotes: Interesting logic, but you underestimated the stubborn jackassery that is George Lucas. The year 2006 mocks you.

Trying to tie a 20th century secular totalitarian movement with a 21st century religious crusade is at best a statement of historical ignorance, and at worst a blatant attempt to mislead people. The intended end results are the same from each movement. That is, the destruction of western civilization, freedom, and democracy. So does that also make the Islamic terrorists Communists? Or militarists? They also saught to end western civilization, freedom, and democracy. You can't run around saying that things are the same just because they have a few similarities. Fascists believed that the national state was supreme and everything needed to be done for its glory, and wanted servitude to a secular government or dictator that answered to no one. That is not what Islamic terrorists believe. One is a movement based on nationalism, a secular movement. The other is based on a religious ideology. Since there is a clear contradiction between the two concepts, the only other reason to use the term "Islamic fascism" is to intentionally mislead people into equating our current predicament with World War II in order to arouse a sense of patriotism. World War II and the War on Terrorism are not comparable. Unlike the Germans and Italians, our current enemies wear no uniforms, claim no borders, and do not use the methods of conventional warfare. They are unlike any enemy we have ever faced, and to continue to pretend we can fight and destroy them using conventional military means is an exercise in deluded bravado. But, if you confuse the public into thinking this war is just like World War II, because our enemies are just like those we fought in World War II, you can only succeed in mustering public support while losing the war overall. This is NOT World War II. This is a completely new kind of conflict that cannot be describe with conventional language any more than it can be fought with conventional warfare. When the hell are you people going to wake up and figure that out?

Has anyone proposed the idea to divide Iraq up into separate countries according to ethnic group? It would probably involve more of an investment there than we're already making, but it'd be better than the current model of trying to unite them just so they can have a full-blown Civil War the second we leave. I still think leaving Iraq's a bad idea, but what we're doing now has no chance of working. These people have no desire to get along with each other. Why continue to force them into being a united democracy?

New ad about Iraq I saw on TV tonight can be found at: http://progressforamerica.org/ All the flat-out lies are in bold. In order: -Hezbollah didn't attack us. -Ending military occupation of Iraq isn't the same thing as leaving the entire Middle East. -This article sums it up. -We have not destroyed the Al-Qaeda terrorists in either place. -NSA wiretapping had nothing do with the recent foiled plot, since it was British intelligence that brought the plot to an end. Factcheck.org also does an excellent job dissecting this piece of crap ad.

Also: I'm back.

Trying to tie a 20th century secular totalitarian movement with a 21st century religious crusade is at best a statement of historical ignorance, and at worst a blatant attempt to mislead people. Islamic terrorism, while horrific and disgusting, is not the same thing as fascism. One is based on a glorification of homicidal martyrdom in the name of religion, while the other is based on the glorification of nationalism and the state. Except for the fact both a contrary to the ideals of liberty, they have nothing in common. To continue to equate Islamic terrorism with fascism, given their very different ideals, methods, and goals, are an egregious act of either intellectual dishonesty or total ignorance of history. In other words, shut the fuck up and read a history book, jackass.

Yeah, we've had Ann Coulter threads before, but she's really outdone herself this time. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198508,00.html I doubt any of these women think 9/11 only happened to them, and everyone has to admit the families of 9/11 victims were hit the hardest by the tragedy. Saying they've enjoyed their husbands deaths is really going too far. These 4 women have incurred Coulter's wrath because they've been critical of the Bush's administrations handling of terrorism. Rather than respectfully disagreeing with their conclusions and defending the Bush administration's policies, Coulter is attacking their motives and calling them names. The media needs to stop treating this woman as if she speaks for the right. All she's doing is damaging her side.

Does anybody have any idea what the hell this stupid jackass is talking about? I sure don't. Nor do I remember ever saying I thought a teacher had a right to teach the Holocaust didn't happen. Don't put words in my mouth, you lying little shit. That's a lot of fucking assholery to assume someone supports anti-semitism just because they think hate speech laws are a bad idea. And don't drag my professional integrity into this, either. First of all, nothing I do or say on this board reflects what I'm like from 7:00am to 2:15pm. Second, this argument has absolutely nothing to do with my profession, because I don't fucking teach in Canada. I never even weighed in on whether or not the Keegstra case was justifiable censorship or not. But not only did you assume my position, you said it showed I thought it was okay to teach anti-semitism in schools. FUCK YOU! I never said any of that shit. Sorry I insulted your precious homeland of Canada, but its your government that puts the burden upon the individual to demonstrate how the speech benefits the public, not mine.

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2006/07/the_new_buffy_c.html

It's a lot like Hitler. When all else fails, call your opponent a bigot. Yeah, its a lot like that. Sorry I'm cluttering up your beloved NHB fodler with actual flaming, but YPOV really is a total dipshit. Especially when he was responding to a post I made to C-Bacon as a joke. He got his feelings all hurt because I was insulting Canada, and decide to tell me I hated Jews, because he's a pussy like that.

That's in America and that seems to say that you can't use hateful terms. Y2JerkSC will probably try to spin his way out of this one though. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between private companies, unions and the government. The former are things that are volutarily joined, the latter is somehting which has jurisdiction over anything within a certain physical area. I am against university speech codes, because they put limitations on debate, and its always possible a teachers or a student is only presenting views they don't necessarily agree with for the purpose of spurring debate. Funny you keep mentioning MikeSC, since you're the only one here who keeps trying to use the Mike-like tactic of assuming you know what my positions are and setting up stupid straw man arguments around them.

Like I said... The article was called "Freedom of Speech," and not "The Keegstra case". The issue of free speech isn't limited to the Keegstra case. Was the Keegstra case the only time in Canadian history freedom of speech has been an issue or something? Also...

That's not about free speech, thats about professional ethics. The difference is that when I became a teacher, I willingly signed a contract that said I'd abide by a certain code of conduct. Likewise, somene who denies the Holocaust shouldn't be teaching because its professionally incompetent for a history teacher to deny one of the most documented crimes in human history. I'd like to point out something... I never sided with the guy! The part of the article I was quoting wasn't the part that talked about the Keegstra case. Damn, you're stupid.

No, I'm exactly right. Free speech means you should be able to say what you think without the government punishing you for it. If the Canadian government can fine people for insulting gays, then free speech isn't all that free. Try reading some Voltaire sometime. In this case, I believe their information to be accurate. I could've used other sources, but their info was the easiest to find. Does anybody have any idea what the hell this stupid jackass is talking about? I sure don't. Nor do I remember ever saying I thought a teacher had a right to teach the Holocaust didn't happen. Don't put words in my mouth, you lying little shit.

Too bad Chris Latta's deceased.

I wonder if Willem Dafoe was considered for the part. I can understand they'd want to stay away from comparisons to the Spider-Man films, but still, he'd have been great.

Ain't It Cool News is reporting that Peter Cullen will be the voice of Optimus Prime in the new movie. Thank God.