Students Told to Call 9-11 Hijackers Freedom Fighters

  • 177 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#101 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Yeah, you're right. Teachers really shouldn't encourage students to think critically or to consider things from outside of their comfort zone. A nation of dullards is what we need.

worlock77

It has nothing to do with critical thinking. The Holocaust was genocide, that is a fact. It's important to understand what lead to the Holocaust, but it's stupid not to call it what it is.

Is calling it "ethnic cleansing" somehow inaccurate? Seems to me like splitting hairs here.

Yes it is, because there is nothing dirty about being a specific ethnicity. There is nothing to be cleansed. That is a racist term used to try to excuse or even justify genocide. Liberals want to reword everything to make atrocities sound like something to accept and support. Terrorism is terrorism. Genocide is genocide.
Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#102 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts
This story is a great example of what is wrong with public education. People shouldn't be allowed to use tax dollars to carry out their social/political agenda, but that is what happens in public schools.
Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#103 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Telling students not to call terrorism terrorism and genocide genocide. Not what I'd want in a teacher.PWSteal_Ldpinch

Yeah, you're right. Teachers really shouldn't encourage students to think critically or to consider things from outside of their comfort zone. A nation of dullards is what we need.

I assume you're one of those people who believes evolution should be taught alongside intelligent design for the sake of "critical thinking". You're either a hypocrite or a f*cking idiot.

You could assume that, but you'd be a goddamn moron in doing so.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b78379493e12
deactivated-5b78379493e12

15625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#104 deactivated-5b78379493e12
Member since 2005 • 15625 Posts

This story is a great example of what is wrong with public education. People shouldn't be allowed to use tax dollars to carry out their social/political agenda, but that is what happens in public schools.Laihendi

Political agendas in public schools? You might have a point, but with school vouchers, tax money is going to private school education where political and religious agendas are more pronounced.

Avatar image for the_bi99man
the_bi99man

11465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#105 the_bi99man
Member since 2004 • 11465 Posts

Students at Lumberton High School were also told to stop referring to the Holocaust as Genocide instead they were told to use the term ethnic cleansing.Article

This is far more disturbing than the part that made the headline.

Avatar image for scott1213
scott1213

1667

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#106 scott1213
Member since 2006 • 1667 Posts

Like others said, it's texas. What more could you expect?

Avatar image for MrPraline
MrPraline

21351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#107 MrPraline
Member since 2008 • 21351 Posts

Like others said, it's texas. What more could you expect?

scott1213
I would expect the complete opposite of Texas, to be honest.
Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#108 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts
This story is a great example of what is wrong with public education. People shouldn't be allowed to use tax dollars to carry out their social/political agenda, but that is what happens in public schools.Laihendi
Instead they should all be home schooled. Its worked out so well for Lai.
Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#109 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

Liberals want to reword everything to make atrocities sound like something to accept and support. Laihendi
You are a fvcking moron.

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#110 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Telling students not to call terrorism terrorism and genocide genocide. Not what I'd want in a teacher.chessmaster1989

Yeah, you're right. Teachers really shouldn't encourage students to think critically or to consider things from outside of their comfort zone. A nation of dullards is what we need.

It has nothing to do with critical thinking. The Holocaust was genocide, that is a fact. It's important to understand what lead to the Holocaust, but it's stupid not to call it what it is.

The holocaust was genocide, however it was also ethnic cleansing. So why does the word matter? The important thing is that people understand that what happened in the holocaust was wrong and why. Beyond that it's historically more accurate to describe the actions of the Nazis as ethnic cleansing as genocide was the result of that policy. As for the 9/11 thing: Don't you think it's important to understand that things can be bad no matter who is doing them? Obviously the kids know 9/11 was terrible, obviously they already know everyone in pretty much everywhere calls them terrorists. So what if they were in the group that backs actions like 9/11? What do they call them? They celebrate them. Look at the IRA. It's a terrorist organization, right? Founding fathers of America committed acts of terror. Terrorists, right? People are so goddamn concerned with titles rather than actions, they'd rather look at a title and know if their actions were black and white and not have to worry about the motives and history behind their action which is kind of what history is about. Hell watch someone get all mad about the founding fathers comment, proving my point, even though I just typed this little disclaimer. tl;dr: Titles are unimportant in history class, it's what they did that matters
Avatar image for deactivated-5b78379493e12
deactivated-5b78379493e12

15625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#111 deactivated-5b78379493e12
Member since 2005 • 15625 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Liberals want to reword everything to make atrocities sound like something to accept and support. Aljosa23

You are a fvcking moron.

True liberterians should be against both sides, and not cherrypick against one. Lai is showing his true colors. Perhaps he really is trying to be kraykray.

Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#112 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]This story is a great example of what is wrong with public education. People shouldn't be allowed to use tax dollars to carry out their social/political agenda, but that is what happens in public schools.jimkabrhel

Political agendas in public schools? You might have a point, but with school vouchers, tax money is going to private school education where political and religious agendas are more pronounced.

The fact that politicians have a problem supporting vouchers for education proves that they are more interested in funding the schools themselves than the process of being educated. They are more interested in supporting institutions than in giving children an opportunity to learn. The answer to the question of what to do about funding public education/schools is very simple: stop funding them with stolen money.
Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#113 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]This story is a great example of what is wrong with public education. People shouldn't be allowed to use tax dollars to carry out their social/political agenda, but that is what happens in public schools.Laihendi

Political agendas in public schools? You might have a point, but with school vouchers, tax money is going to private school education where political and religious agendas are more pronounced.

The fact that politicians have a problem supporting vouchers for education proves that they are more interested in funding the schools themselves than the process of being educated. They are more interested in supporting institutions than in giving children an opportunity to learn. The answer to the question of what to do about funding public education/schools is very simple: stop funding them with stolen money.

The irony here about you accusing public officials of not caring about giving children an opportunity to learn yet you support private education that only the rich can afford is hilarious. I'm also starting to think you're really just an elaborate joke/troll character.

Avatar image for PWSteal_Ldpinch
PWSteal_Ldpinch

1172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#114 PWSteal_Ldpinch
Member since 2011 • 1172 Posts

Again, the 9/11 hijackers' goal wasn't necessarily not kill innocent citizens, it was to damage the United States. The World Trade Center and the Pentagon were strategic targets and the attacks were carried out quite early in the day. Had the goal simply been to kill as many people as possible then they would have struck later on. 

worlock77


I doubt you've ever had a steady job but the standard work hours for public employees is 9-5. The WTC was hit 9:03 AM tuesday morning and the Pentagon was hit 9:37 AM the same day. If their intent was to "not kill innocents" why didn't they attack during the night or better yet, during the weekend? FFS it was an attack on the most populated borough of the most populated city in the US and you're telling me they were trying to minimize civilian casualties. Worlock, you've got serious mental damage.

Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#115 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Liberals want to reword everything to make atrocities sound like something to accept and support. Aljosa23

You are a fvcking moron.

No I am not. Liberals are always the first to complain when the vague but sacred code of "political correctness" is violated. Liberals always say "You can't say that! You might offend someone!". Liberals care about calling the world a nice place to live on, whereas I care about making the world a nice place to live on. That is the difference between a liberal and an individual.
Avatar image for deactivated-5b78379493e12
deactivated-5b78379493e12

15625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#116 deactivated-5b78379493e12
Member since 2005 • 15625 Posts

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]This story is a great example of what is wrong with public education. People shouldn't be allowed to use tax dollars to carry out their social/political agenda, but that is what happens in public schools.Laihendi

Political agendas in public schools? You might have a point, but with school vouchers, tax money is going to private school education where political and religious agendas are more pronounced.

The fact that politicians have a problem supporting vouchers for education proves that they are more interested in funding the schools themselves than the process of being educated. They are more interested in supporting institutions than in giving children an opportunity to learn. The answer to the question of what to do about funding public education/schools is very simple: stop funding them with stolen money.

If you really are insistent on singling out public/government (insert institution) and no be critical of other areas, I really can't help you. It's just closed minded. There are a lot of public schools that are below average, but throwing that money to private schools who aren't statistically any better isn't the answer.

The problem of education in this country isn't about funding, it's about quality of teachers, the attention of students and the engagement of parents. 

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#117 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Liberals want to reword everything to make atrocities sound like something to accept and support. Laihendi

You are a fvcking moron.

No I am not. Liberals are always the first to complain when the vague but sacred code of "political correctness" is violated. Liberals always say "You can't say that! You might offend someone!". Liberals care about calling the world a nice place to live on, whereas I care about making the world a nice place to live on. That is the difference between a liberal and an individual.

Just more word garbage and generalizations. None of what you said there has anything to do with what I quoted.

Let's be real here, you don't care about anyone but yourself. You've made that clear millions of times.

Avatar image for MrPraline
MrPraline

21351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#118 MrPraline
Member since 2008 • 21351 Posts
Perhaps he really is trying to be kraykray.jimkabrhel
young kreayshawn grimey but i feel so elegant
Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#119 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Political agendas in public schools? You might have a point, but with school vouchers, tax money is going to private school education where political and religious agendas are more pronounced.

Aljosa23

The fact that politicians have a problem supporting vouchers for education proves that they are more interested in funding the schools themselves than the process of being educated. They are more interested in supporting institutions than in giving children an opportunity to learn. The answer to the question of what to do about funding public education/schools is very simple: stop funding them with stolen money.

The irony here about you accusing public officials of not caring about giving children an opportunity to learn yet you support private education that only the rich can afford is hilarious. I'm also starting to think you're really just an elaborate joke/troll character.

The idea that only the rich can afford education is ridiculous. 1. Public schools are extremely wasteful and inefficient. Schools would be much cheaper if they didn't have to also function as daycare centers for children with no interest in going to school. That is not so much of a problem in early grades, but it is a very serious problem for high schools. 2. The middle class holds the vast majority of wealth in this country, and all of the money the government uses to fund "education" is money it takes from the people (mostly the middle class). If it was true that only the rich could afford education for themselves, then it would be impossible for all of these public schools to exist today, because there wouldn't be enough money to fund them.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#120 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts
This story is a great example of what is wrong with public education. People shouldn't be allowed to use tax dollars to carry out their social/political agenda, but that is what happens in public schools.Laihendi
Welcome to the voucher system
Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#121 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

I care about making the world a nice place to live on. That is the difference between a liberal and an individual.Laihendi

No, you want the world to return to the guilded age. 

Avatar image for PWSteal_Ldpinch
PWSteal_Ldpinch

1172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#122 PWSteal_Ldpinch
Member since 2011 • 1172 Posts

[QUOTE="scott1213"]

Like others said, it's texas. What more could you expect?

MrPraline

I would expect the complete opposite of Texas, to be honest.

Aren't they trying to include intelligent design in their science textbooks for the sake of "critical thinking"? In that sense they're at least being consistent.

Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#123 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]You are a fvcking moron.

Aljosa23

No I am not. Liberals are always the first to complain when the vague but sacred code of "political correctness" is violated. Liberals always say "You can't say that! You might offend someone!". Liberals care about calling the world a nice place to live on, whereas I care about making the world a nice place to live on. That is the difference between a liberal and an individual.

Just more word garbage and generalizations. None of what you said there has anything to do with what I quoted.

Let's be real here, you don't care about anyone but yourself. You've made that clear millions of times.

I don't know what quote you're talking about, but none of what you said is relevant to my points. You are making an ad hominem attack.
Avatar image for TheSacredFlame
TheSacredFlame

324

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#124 TheSacredFlame
Member since 2011 • 324 Posts

The only gripe I have is the "Freedom Fighters" babble.

I don't see how they were fighting for freedom, but more for the stagnation of western influence in the Middle East.

Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#125 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

You are making an ad hominem attack.Laihendi

Stop using that term. It's clear that you don't understand what it actually means. I've seen you invoke it countless times and never once correctly.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#126 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

The idea that only the rich can afford education is ridiculous. 1. Public schools are extremely wasteful and inefficient. Schools would be much cheaper if they didn't have to also function as daycare centers for children with no interest in going to school. That is not so much of a problem in early grades, but it is a very serious problem for high schools. 2. The middle class holds the vast majority of wealth in this country, and all of the money the government uses to fund "education" is money it takes from the people (mostly the middle class). If it was true that only the rich could afford education for themselves, then it would be impossible for all of these public schools to exist today, because there wouldn't be enough money to fund them.Laihendi
It's not ridiculous because that's how it is now. Why do you think private schools are so expensive that only upper-class students go there? Besides private research Universities, their whole purpose is to make a PROFIT because that's the only reason a private school would exist. If public education died tomorrow you'd be seeing way more garbage schools like DeVry and ITT Tech.

Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#127 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

The only gripe I have is the "Freedom Fighters" babble.

I don't see how they were fighting for freedom, but more for the stagnation of western influence in the Middle East.

TheSacredFlame

Po-ta-to, po-tot-o.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#128 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]You are making an ad hominem attack.worlock77

Stop using that term. It's clear that you don't understand what it actually means. I've seen you invoke it countless times and never once correctly.

What's funny about it is that he thinks fallacies don't exist when he commits them.
Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#129 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

I don't know what quote you're talking about, but none of what you said is relevant to my points. You are making an ad hominem attack.Laihendi
This quote you fool "Liberals want to reword everything to make atrocities sound like something to accept and support." I'd like proof of your moronic generalization and claim that Liberals accept and support genocide.

Also, that wasn't an ad hominem attack. This is an ad hominem: I don't believe anything you say because you're ugly and you smell. Me calling you a fvcking idiot or a sociopath isn't an ad hominem, it's just calling what I see.

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#130 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Again, the 9/11 hijackers' goal wasn't necessarily not kill innocent citizens, it was to damage the United States. The World Trade Center and the Pentagon were strategic targets and the attacks were carried out quite early in the day. Had the goal simply been to kill as many people as possible then they would have struck later on. 

PWSteal_Ldpinch


I doubt you've ever had a steady job but the standard work hours for public employees is 9-5. The WTC was hit 9:03 AM tuesday morning and the Pentagon was hit 9:37 AM the same day. If their intent was to "not kill innocents" why didn't they attack during the night or better yet, during the weekend? FFS it was an attack on the most populated borough of the most populated city in the US and you're telling me they were trying to minimize civilian casualties. Worlock, you've got serious mental damage.

8:46am actually, the second plane was at 9:03. On top of that it was Mayoral election day and the tower had nowhere near it's usual number of people in it. 17,000 I think are the official numbers and normally it would be around 56,000. Unless their months of planning were really poorly thought out it's likely they weren't going for maximum deaths and instead the high profile attacks they were.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#131 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

The only gripe I have is the "Freedom Fighters" babble.

I don't see how they were fighting for freedom, but more for the stagnation of western influence in the Middle East.

TheSacredFlame
Heh. It's kind of funny that we were calling these same guys freedom fighters 30 years ago when they were fighting the Russians and now that they're mad at the rest of the western world the word no longer applies. Generally speaking though Freedom fighters is kind of a misnomer since it usually just applies to an armed rebellion fighting for freedom from the influence of a group and not necessarily for what we'd call freedom in general term. There's a reason some news sites use more neutral terms like "militants" or "guerrillas".
Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#132 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]The idea that only the rich can afford education is ridiculous. 1. Public schools are extremely wasteful and inefficient. Schools would be much cheaper if they didn't have to also function as daycare centers for children with no interest in going to school. That is not so much of a problem in early grades, but it is a very serious problem for high schools. 2. The middle class holds the vast majority of wealth in this country, and all of the money the government uses to fund "education" is money it takes from the people (mostly the middle class). If it was true that only the rich could afford education for themselves, then it would be impossible for all of these public schools to exist today, because there wouldn't be enough money to fund them.Aljosa23

It's not ridiculous because that's how it is now. Why do you think private schools are so expensive that only upper-class students go there? Besides private research Universities, their whole purpose is to make a PROFIT because that's the only reason a private school would exist. If public education died tomorrow you'd be seeing way more garbage schools like DeVry and ITT Tech.


That is absurd. An educational institution will never be able to create large profits for itself, because any institution that doesn't use its revenues to expand its facilities and hire better/more faculty members will be out-competed by the institution that does.

Private education is not more expensive than public education. If you do the math then you will see that public education can easily cost $20,000+ per year per student. Those $20,000 are being taken from middle-class citizens to buy "education" for their children. Education in general would actually be much cheaper if the government would stop pumping in so many dollars and causing inflation.

It is common knowledge that liberals are the ones wanting to rephrase everything for the sake of "political correctness".

Here is a great article on the matter.

To understand the world of "politically correct" liberal  fascism in words and expression, the following explanations are intended to help normal people avoid misunderstandings and awkward encounters with the Politically Correct Liberal Thought Police.  The following translations should help to clarify the real meanings of statements made by "liberal" politicians and those in the Establishment media:

"Fairness": what happens when liberals get their way.

"Unfairness": when "liberals" do not get their way.

"Funding":  money from government

"Compassionate":  using taxpayer money to buy votes.

"Insensitivity":  objecting to the use of taxpayer money to buy votes.

"Crisis":  any situation which "liberals" or leftists want changed through government action and compassionate funding (taxes).

"Public Interest Group":  politically organized group of "liberals" or leftists supporting "liberal" causes or kooky "environmental" programs.

"Special Interest Lobby":  politically organized group of conservatives or libertarians.

"White Middle-Class Greed: If someone resents paying taxes to support our generous welfare system (corporate or individual), that person is guilty of White Middle-Class Greed, regardless of his race or earnings level. Most of the worlds problems can be traced to White Middle-Class Greed and American Capitalism, as we all know.

"Entitlement":  An entitlement is something that "Society" owes a member of a specially designated minority group or person defined as below the poverty level (as determined by government bureaucrats). It is provided by getting the government to take money from those who work for it and then giving it to those who are entitled to it. Those who work for it or earn it through market investments are NOT entitled to it, you understand.

"Equal Opportunity":  preferential treatment.

"Simplistic":  arguments "liberals" don't agree with but can't answer

"Welfare for Corporations": While conservatives or libertarians think of corporate welfare as subsidies to business interests taken at the expense of the taxpayers, politically correct "liberals" take a different view. To them,  a tax cut is corporate welfare. It is naturally assumed that all taxes already going to various levels of government rightfully belong to the government -- and any cut in that revenue, or even a slight decline in its rate of growth, represents theft from the government by greedy, selfish people. The government and those served by its various programs are never greedy or selfish, of course.

"Taxes": the price we pay to live in a "civilized" society of equality and fairness for all. (This pernicious assumption is accepted uncritically by many people, including many who do not consider themselves to be "liberals"! It is a corollary of the liberal doctrine that good ends justify any means, whether they are moral or not, and whether they work or not.)

"Sexual Harassment": Militant feminists (who generally dont like men anyway) claim that a woman is automatically a victim of sexual harassment if a man looks at her (or her picture) in a "leering" manner or just thinks lusty thoughts about her in the privacy of his mind. No touching at all has to occur for a man to be guilty of sexual harassment. On the other hand, if a liberal celebrity, such as Bill Clinton, drops his pants and demands that a woman kiss or suck his penis THAT is NOT sexual harassment.

"Lack of Sensitivity": If a homosexual touches you on your knee or your arm -- and you jump away, then YOU are guilty of discrimination and narrow-mindedness -- and sensitivity training is scheduled to "raise your consciousness" and level of sensitivity with regard to homosexuals and their needs and rights. Of course, the homosexual who touches you is NOT guilty of sexual harassment. Hes just being a "free spirit" . . . .

"Censorship": any attempt by conservatives or libertarians to cut the amount of money taken away from taxpayers that goes to the National Endowment for the Arts -- as when Senator Helms merely expresses his belief that Americans should not be forced to support art which they find offensive, such Mapplethorpes picture of a nude man urinating into the mouth of a young boy. (If Mapplethorpes pedophile-oriented "art" is not your thing, it doesnt matter because you are forced to contribute to it anyway through the National Endowment of the Arts, a tax-supported federal bureaucracy.)

"non-judgemental":  blaming "society" for acts committed by those who do not want to take responsibility

"Exrtremists":  those who adhere to principles with which Establishment "liberals" disagree, especially libertarians and conservatives.  These people are considered Beyond the Pale.

"Radicals":  left-wing militants with whom "liberals" are generally sympathetic and therefore whose excesses should be ignored or covered up.

"Anti-War Activists":  those demanding unilateral disarmament.

"Private Greed":  earning money by selling something that people want and are willing to pay for.

 

Political Correctness is a Liberal/Left Weapon for Thought Control

The politically correct liberal thought police impulse or movement has little to do with courtesy or politeness, but rather with an attempt to control other peoples thoughts and make other people think exactly like the liberal busy body thinks everybody should think. It is akin to living in Nazi Germany where everybody was expected to think like one man: ein reich, ein folk, ein fuhrer! -- one nation, one people, one leader (I, Adolf, of course)! In modern America it is mostly dominant on colleges and universities where the Extreme Left still retains power over the newspapers and communications media and social sciences departments.

Liberal/left politically correct thought control is just an extension of busy-bodyism, and ultimately they both extend to socialism -- the attempt to make everyone conform to a central plan dictated by elitist planners in the political State. Allowing individuals to pursue their own private plans, and allowing the free price system to help co-ordinate and organize those various plans into a dynamic harmony, never occurs to the liberal mentality. Thats why the liberal/left mindset is anti-market and anti-individual freedom and anti-privacy. Some extreme "liberals" support what they call "democratic socialism"; they think a little socialism is OK as long as it is democratically sanctioned. Yet, if people are not smart enough or responsible enough to run their own lives and spend their own money, how can they be smart enough or responsible enough to be able to choose through elections those who would run our lives for us and spend our money for us? But, America is beginning to make a come-back and we will ultimately prevail over the elitist nonsense of the politically correct thought police.

source

Avatar image for PWSteal_Ldpinch
PWSteal_Ldpinch

1172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#133 PWSteal_Ldpinch
Member since 2011 • 1172 Posts

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Again, the 9/11 hijackers' goal wasn't necessarily not kill innocent citizens, it was to damage the United States. The World Trade Center and the Pentagon were strategic targets and the attacks were carried out quite early in the day. Had the goal simply been to kill as many people as possible then they would have struck later on. 

Ace6301


I doubt you've ever had a steady job but the standard work hours for public employees is 9-5. The WTC was hit 9:03 AM tuesday morning and the Pentagon was hit 9:37 AM the same day. If their intent was to "not kill innocents" why didn't they attack during the night or better yet, during the weekend? FFS it was an attack on the most populated borough of the most populated city in the US and you're telling me they were trying to minimize civilian casualties. Worlock, you've got serious mental damage.

8:46am actually, the second plane was at 9:03. On top of that it was Mayoral election day and the tower had nowhere near it's usual number of people in it. 17,000 I think are the official numbers and normally it would be around 56,000. Unless their months of planning were really poorly thought out it's likely they weren't going for maximum deaths and instead the high profile attacks they were.

It was a primary election and even if it was the actual election, election days are not considered holidays in the US. In any case, I think that if they wanted to minimize civilians deaths, they could have done much better. 

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#134 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]


I doubt you've ever had a steady job but the standard work hours for public employees is 9-5. The WTC was hit 9:03 AM tuesday morning and the Pentagon was hit 9:37 AM the same day. If their intent was to "not kill innocents" why didn't they attack during the night or better yet, during the weekend? FFS it was an attack on the most populated borough of the most populated city in the US and you're telling me they were trying to minimize civilian casualties. Worlock, you've got serious mental damage.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

8:46am actually, the second plane was at 9:03. On top of that it was Mayoral election day and the tower had nowhere near it's usual number of people in it. 17,000 I think are the official numbers and normally it would be around 56,000. Unless their months of planning were really poorly thought out it's likely they weren't going for maximum deaths and instead the high profile attacks they were.

It was a primary election and even if it was the actual election, election days are not considered holidays in the US. In any case, I think that if they wanted to minimize civilians deaths, they could have done much better. 

Not saying they were aiming at minimizing, I'm saying they weren't aiming for maximizing.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178883

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#135 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178883 Posts
[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Again, the 9/11 hijackers' goal wasn't necessarily not kill innocent citizens, it was to damage the United States. The World Trade Center and the Pentagon were strategic targets and the attacks were carried out quite early in the day. Had the goal simply been to kill as many people as possible then they would have struck later on. 

Ace6301


I doubt you've ever had a steady job but the standard work hours for public employees is 9-5. The WTC was hit 9:03 AM tuesday morning and the Pentagon was hit 9:37 AM the same day. If their intent was to "not kill innocents" why didn't they attack during the night or better yet, during the weekend? FFS it was an attack on the most populated borough of the most populated city in the US and you're telling me they were trying to minimize civilian casualties. Worlock, you've got serious mental damage.

8:46am actually, the second plane was at 9:03. On top of that it was Mayoral election day and the tower had nowhere near it's usual number of people in it. 17,000 I think are the official numbers and normally it would be around 56,000. Unless their months of planning were really poorly thought out it's likely they weren't going for maximum deaths and instead the high profile attacks they were.

Targeting civilian structures is targeting civilians.
Avatar image for PWSteal_Ldpinch
PWSteal_Ldpinch

1172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#136 PWSteal_Ldpinch
Member since 2011 • 1172 Posts

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] 8:46am actually, the second plane was at 9:03. On top of that it was Mayoral election day and the tower had nowhere near it's usual number of people in it. 17,000 I think are the official numbers and normally it would be around 56,000. Unless their months of planning were really poorly thought out it's likely they weren't going for maximum deaths and instead the high profile attacks they were. Ace6301

It was a primary election and even if it was the actual election, election days are not considered holidays in the US. In any case, I think that if they wanted to minimize civilians deaths, they could have done much better. 

Not saying they were aiming at minimizing, I'm saying they weren't aiming for maximizing.

Oh yah everyone knows the sweet spot for a terrorist attack is ~2000 people.

Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#137 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]


I doubt you've ever had a steady job but the standard work hours for public employees is 9-5. The WTC was hit 9:03 AM tuesday morning and the Pentagon was hit 9:37 AM the same day. If their intent was to "not kill innocents" why didn't they attack during the night or better yet, during the weekend? FFS it was an attack on the most populated borough of the most populated city in the US and you're telling me they were trying to minimize civilian casualties. Worlock, you've got serious mental damage.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

8:46am actually, the second plane was at 9:03. On top of that it was Mayoral election day and the tower had nowhere near it's usual number of people in it. 17,000 I think are the official numbers and normally it would be around 56,000. Unless their months of planning were really poorly thought out it's likely they weren't going for maximum deaths and instead the high profile attacks they were.

It was a primary election and even if it was the actual election, election days are not considered holidays in the US. In any case, I think that if they wanted to minimize civilians deaths, they could have done much better. 

A: Nothing was said about the day being a holiday.

B: Nothing was said about them wanting to minimize civilian deaths, just that maximum civilian deaths was not the goal.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178883

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#138 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178883 Posts

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] 8:46am actually, the second plane was at 9:03. On top of that it was Mayoral election day and the tower had nowhere near it's usual number of people in it. 17,000 I think are the official numbers and normally it would be around 56,000. Unless their months of planning were really poorly thought out it's likely they weren't going for maximum deaths and instead the high profile attacks they were. worlock77

It was a primary election and even if it was the actual election, election days are not considered holidays in the US. In any case, I think that if they wanted to minimize civilians deaths, they could have done much better. 

A: Nothing was said about the day being a holiday.

B: Nothing was said about them wanting to minimize civilian deaths, just that maximum civilian deaths was not the goal.

B is an assumption. For all you know they weren't familiar with the traffic pattern at the towers.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#139 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

It was a primary election and even if it was the actual election, election days are not considered holidays in the US. In any case, I think that if they wanted to minimize civilians deaths, they could have done much better. 

PWSteal_Ldpinch

Not saying they were aiming at minimizing, I'm saying they weren't aiming for maximizing.

Oh yah everyone knows the sweet spot for a terrorist attack is ~2000 people.

~3000 actually.
Avatar image for PWSteal_Ldpinch
PWSteal_Ldpinch

1172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#140 PWSteal_Ldpinch
Member since 2011 • 1172 Posts

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

It was a primary election and even if it was the actual election, election days are not considered holidays in the US. In any case, I think that if they wanted to minimize civilians deaths, they could have done much better. 

LJS9502_basic

A: Nothing was said about the day being a holiday.

B: Nothing was said about them wanting to minimize civilian deaths, just that maximum civilian deaths was not the goal.

B is an assumption. For all you know they weren't familiar with the traffic pattern at the towers.

No point in arguing with a nutjob LJ. Whether they believe Al Qaeda or US goverment was responsible for the attack, it was the result of perfect planning and nothing can be just a coincidence.

Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#141 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

It was a primary election and even if it was the actual election, election days are not considered holidays in the US. In any case, I think that if they wanted to minimize civilians deaths, they could have done much better. 

LJS9502_basic

A: Nothing was said about the day being a holiday.

B: Nothing was said about them wanting to minimize civilian deaths, just that maximum civilian deaths was not the goal.

B is an assumption. For all you know they weren't familiar with the traffic pattern at the towers.

I imagine they were well aware of the fact that around 8:30-9:00 AM people are still going to be filing into to work, and thus understand that if they wanted as many casualities as possible attacking later in the day would have been much better.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178883

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#142 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178883 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

A: Nothing was said about the day being a holiday.

B: Nothing was said about them wanting to minimize civilian deaths, just that maximum civilian deaths was not the goal.

worlock77

B is an assumption. For all you know they weren't familiar with the traffic pattern at the towers.

I imagine they were well aware of the fact that around 8:30-9:00 AM people are still going to be filing into to work, and thus understand that if they wanted as many casualities as possible attacking later in the day would have been much better.

Oh well YOU IMAGINE...what better proof could we have?
Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#143 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts
[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] B is an assumption. For all you know they weren't familiar with the traffic pattern at the towers.LJS9502_basic

I imagine they were well aware of the fact that around 8:30-9:00 AM people are still going to be filing into to work, and thus understand that if they wanted as many casualities as possible attacking later in the day would have been much better.

Oh well YOU IMAGINE...what better proof could we have?

Take your trolling elsewhere.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178883

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#144 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178883 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I imagine they were well aware of the fact that around 8:30-9:00 AM people are still going to be filing into to work, and thus understand that if they wanted as many casualities as possible attacking later in the day would have been much better.

Nibroc420
Oh well YOU IMAGINE...what better proof could we have?

Take your trolling elsewhere.

You're the troll. Go away. Everyone else is on topic.
Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#145 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] B is an assumption. For all you know they weren't familiar with the traffic pattern at the towers.LJS9502_basic

I imagine they were well aware of the fact that around 8:30-9:00 AM people are still going to be filing into to work, and thus understand that if they wanted as many casualities as possible attacking later in the day would have been much better.

Oh well YOU IMAGINE...what better proof could we have?

Simply using deductive reasoning here. They spent years carefully plotting out the attack, do you really think they'd be ignorant of the typical business day of their target?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178883

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#146 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178883 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I imagine they were well aware of the fact that around 8:30-9:00 AM people are still going to be filing into to work, and thus understand that if they wanted as many casualities as possible attacking later in the day would have been much better.

worlock77

Oh well YOU IMAGINE...what better proof could we have?

Simply using deductive reasoning here. They spent years carefully plotting out the attack, do you really think they'd be ignorant of the typical business day of their target?

I don't know. And I'm not going to assume. People really aren't very bright sometimes.
Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#147 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Oh well YOU IMAGINE...what better proof could we have?

Take your trolling elsewhere.

You're the troll. Go away. Everyone else is on topic.

He's using his logic and reasoning skills to come to a conclusion about things. You're simply mocking him for using his brain.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#148 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] B is an assumption. For all you know they weren't familiar with the traffic pattern at the towers.LJS9502_basic

I imagine they were well aware of the fact that around 8:30-9:00 AM people are still going to be filing into to work, and thus understand that if they wanted as many casualities as possible attacking later in the day would have been much better.

Oh well YOU IMAGINE...what better proof could we have?

Well he is right. Attacking later on would have resulted in more casualties. Hitting a lower point in the tower would have resulted in more casualties. Various other methods of attack such as conventional explosives would have resulted in more casualties. Attacking a structure other than the pentagon would have resulted in more casualties. If you assume they had this planned, and given how successful it was and how much preparation would have gone into this we must assume it was planned for some time, then it's clear the plan was to maximize the profile of the attack and not to maximize casualties. It's just a simple fact that they could have killed many more people. Could they have caused more impact though? Probably not, they were far more successful than anyone had imagined they would be in that respect.
Avatar image for PWSteal_Ldpinch
PWSteal_Ldpinch

1172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#149 PWSteal_Ldpinch
Member since 2011 • 1172 Posts

If you assume they had this planned, and given how successful it was and how much preparation would have gone into this we must assume it was planned for some time, then it's clear the plan was to maximize the profile of the attack and not to maximize casualties. It's just a simple fact that they could have killed many more people. Could they have caused more impact though?Ace6301

They could have attacked the statue of liberty which would have been a more symbolic blow to the image of the United States and would have resulted fewer casualties. In any case I'm done with this argument since it has devolved to pure conjecture without you or Worlock providing any statement from Al Qaeda that supports your argument.

Avatar image for Audacitron
Audacitron

991

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#150 Audacitron
Member since 2012 • 991 Posts

Technically, they are freedom fighters as much as they are terrorists... it all depends on who one asks.Zeviander

 

okay, since:

"one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter".

 

Except I don't think any of them were under any illusions about fighting for 'freedom'.  Unless I've been grossly misinformed, that's not really what Islam is all about.  I don't think the term 'freedom fighter' applies, especially in the case of 9/11 in which the deliberate intention was to provoke the US into war.

 

If they want words to look at it from a more sympathetic perspective, I'd suggest perhaps 'Jihadists' or 'Martyrs'

 

Aside from that, the level of ignorance in that article is staggering. 

I wondered how it was okay for them to go so in-depth into a religion from the other side of the world but it was not okay for them to be like that with Christianity, she said.

 

Right, because Christianity is all-American.  It's not from the other side of the world at all.

 

The teacher sounds like that episode of South Park where Ms Garrison has to teach evolution.

 

Madelyn LeBlanc told Fox News that it was clear her teacher was very uncomfortable lecturing the students.

I do have a lot of sympathy for her, the 15-year-old said. At the very beginning she said she didnt want to teach it but it was in the curriculum.

Her mother added that it was her impression that the teacher did not agree with the quote about calling the terrorists freedom fighters and laced her lecture with sarcasm.

During a lesson on Judaism, LeBlanc said the teacher told the class, Students, Im supposed to be politically correct and tell you that the Holocaust was not Genocide. It was an ethnic cleansing.

right ,because 'ethnic cleansing' is a nice wholesome term with no negative connotations whatsoever, and holocaust denial is 'politically correct'.   That's the whole PC agenda.