2008-05-19
Dear Mr. Rose,
I agree with your points in all your postings and applaud your taking a public stance. I, too, feel it is important that a voice of reason, a voice with data, a voice of dissent be heard. In fact, I was in the process of writing a point-by-point response to one of Mr. Hawley's erronous Iraqi/WMD postings and was even well into version 3 thereof when a light came on.
I and others have had online discussions with Mr. Hawley on this and other political subjects (on the Coloradoan before he was ejected). When it comes to the (Mc)Bush Administration, Mr. Hawley can see no evil.
We gave him chapter and verse across the whole spectrum of Bush Administration policy and action about how they lied to us here and they duped us there, whether we're talking about domestic policy or foreign policy, our Constitutional Law or International Law, fiscal policy or elections, 9/11 or invasion of Iraq, FISA courts or Federal Prosecutors, FEMA or SEC, ...
Yet still he's (Mc)Bush's biggest cheerleader.
DAMN IT! It ought to have been perfectly clear that Bush has had an inverse-Midas touch on everything he came in contact with (from the perspective of an average US citizen, not one of his ultra-rich donors.) It ought to have been perfectly clear that we cannot rely soley on the word of the Bush Administration or any agency headed by Bush appointees.
Mr. Hawley has rarely conceded any points about the crimes of the Bush Administration. He has rarely conceded anything that they have done wrong in a major way, possibly even an impeachable way. He has rarely admitted an instance where they lied. He has never put 2+2 together on their 52+ major scandals that individually could have brought down any other administration.
It isn't without me and others trying. When I thought that my arguments (or those of others) got him close to seeing that "our nation has to take another course," he weaseled his way out by bringing up ancient President Clinton canards or other inapplicable distractions and justified in his mind continued un-Constitutional behavorior of our leaders.
In the message I was writing to Mr. Hawley, I had a passage where I was clarifying his statement: "Every major intelligence agency said he had WMD's."
I brought up the fact that our agencies put hefty qualifiers, conditionals, and weasel-words around such assertions; that assessments from the USA were assigned high levels of confidence when shared with other agencies partly due to our nation outspending all other nations combined on military and intelligence; that Cheney was unhappy with such mincing of words by the CIA, which is why he created his own office of special intelligence (or whatever he called it) that took raw, unanalyzed, intelligence data and skewed it to their meet their policy ends; that Cheney's stovepipe purged all words of uncertainty and doubt from other agency reports, like the NIE and CIA; and that these works of fiction were what they shared with other major intelligence agencies, Congress, the UN, and more importantly leaked to the press. When Cheney was in one of his rare media interviews and was asked questions relating to the (dubious) information circulating in the press, he confirmed the reports "yes, we have heard that" in a perfect echo chamber of disinformation. This is how Screwball's allegations of mobile chemical weapons trailers made it into the official story line.
My point-by-point rebuttal to Mr. Hawley went into a detour where I tried to connect some dots.
______
The final bullet point in the list (below) was written half in jest.
______
Yep, I know this is all far-fetched. I don't half believe it myself. Hawley will have a field day with it. I already know the words he will use to belittle it and me: conspiracy theory, loon, nut, crazy...
Alas, my purpose in being here is to stand witness to truth and to record for history that Americans weren't all lemmings.
So, Mr. Rose, ask yourself this.
Given the Bush Administration's track record of disinformation, misinformation, and media manipulation, if they were inclined to monitor and "steer" internet forums (almost a PNAC goal), what form would that interference take?
The half of me that does entertain this notion recalls that ex-military, security guard, Cali-foreigner Hawley in this forum and others stomps his black paratrooper boots quickly and repeatedly onto the throats of views that deviated from the (Mc)Bush platform and from "Amerika-ueber-alles". He is intolerant and dismissive of any and all evidence no matter how overwhelming and solid. He rarely concedes anything of substance. And when he comes close to a concession, it is a back-handed confession: "I'll offer an apology for my beliefs once they have been charged, tried, convicted, and sent to jail. Only then will I believe. Until then, don't spill your crumbs on the flag I have wrapped around my ass."
If his paycheck doesn't explain his positions, then we'll probably owe him condolences on his diminishing mental health.
May this enlightment, however dim or bright, help guide your future interchanges with Mr. Hawley.
Dear Mr. Hiatt,
You make excellent points. I agree with your well-written analysis on nearly all of them.
Surprise, surprise, for people who've seen my posts, it is your 9/11 comment that I don't agree with. :)
Oh yeah, by the way, 9/11 a government conspiracy? That is also ridiculous. Despite the things we may not hear about our government doing, it is still too porous to get away with this atrocity. All it would take is one whistle blower to bring down the whole Republican Party forever. It would be suicide for the government to try something on this scale. They would have been strung up on the gallows for something like that. Rather, we should be looking at what we do that would have lead people to want to do what they did.
One would hope that it would only take one whistle blower to bring down this administration or any politician of any party who knew better and played along with this 9/11 fraud. It would be pretty disruptive to our government, but not the end of our democracy or the world.
Anybody doing any serious research into 9/11 could guess that the conspiracy would not have to be that large, maybe 150 people. Most are already in positions of power, which allowed them to subtly redirect efforts (like airport security, building security, fighter intercepts). Moreover, they were chosen precisely because they could keep their mouth shut.
(And who knows what lower-level minions of this conspiracy who performed only a compartmentalized task were taken out as part of the larger action to tie up all loose ends.)
The problem for the whistle blower is motivation.
They have already gained handsomely in one way or another for their participation: money, promotion, contracts, contacts, rewards, salary, position, prestige, fame, medal of freedom.
All of that goes away if they speak out. So vested are those in-the-know of this tight-lipped conspiracy, you can bet that they would move heaven-and-earth to smear & discredit any whistle-blower and shut them down. (We had tastes of it with Joseph & Valarie Wilson, Richard Clarke, Sibel Edmunds, and others. Whistle-blowers have not been treated with honors and rewards; quite the contrary.)
Murder would not be ruled out, because hey, 3000 went down with the towers, 4000+ in Iraq, plus maybe a million Iraqis. What's one more.
Murder would not have to be limited to the whistle-blower. Threatening your family "to the 2nd and 3rd generation" can be a pretty stiff deterrent. House fires and car accidents do happen and do kill entire families.
You talked about being strung up on the gallows. Yep, that's ultimately the reward of both traitor and whistle-blower. Even a plea agreement for the whistle-blower leaves them and their families in danger forever.
You wrote:
"It would be suicide for the government to try something on this scale."
It would be suicide to speak up against the government, not necessarily to shut the F. up.
Which would you choose? Keep your mouth shut and hold onto all of the financial gains and worldly prestige? Or, clear your conscience with God of this crime and damn yourself and your family to a life of hiding while at the same time losing your financial gains and worldly honors?
Not a tough choice, as it were.
I'm sure that since 9/11, many lawmakers of both parties have become apprised of 9/11 issues that shook their beliefs on what really happened. On the one hand, others may have convinced them that exposing this fraud could permanently damage our entire democracy; some things, they'll argue, are best that the general public not know, otherwise there'll be riots and unrest. The lawmaker could lose his elected office, his very livelihood, and any lucrative springboard that might have had into the private sector.
On the other hand and to underscore how serious the intentions of the cabal are, let us not forget the Anthrax scare perpetrated on the Democratic Speaker of the House and various members of media, for which a culprit has not been found and the investigation seems stalled.
Ergo, just because no one (alive) has stepped forward to affirm this, doesn't rule out that a tight cabal within the government carried out 9/11.
Mark Hiatt wrote:
"I see how people could be under the impression that the government had a hand in this, but it really seems unlikely. The most I would say is that they ignored the evidence that it might happen due to the fact that they would have to answer up to certain actions that they have participated pertaining to foreign policy or that they didn't know how to react and stop it in time."
Let us be clear. Most 9/11 Truthers don't make blanket statements like "the [entire U.S.] government had a hand in [9/11]", which is the implication I read. I believe it was a tiny cabal of the U.S. Government centered mostly in the Bush Administration: ~150 people.
Yes, in cases they ignored the evidence that it might happen, which raises the question why was no one reprimanded for negligence or incompetence. Part of the answer is that the evidence wasn't just ignored; investigations were actively shutdown by authorization coming all the way down the chain of command before the investigations could connect dots and prevent it. (This resulted in Freedom Medals being issued to George Tenant.) Read about the FBI whistleblowers in Minnesota.
Mark Hiatt wrote:
"However, I don't really believe that our government is evil. It would really take that kind of mentality to allow something like this."
I certainly hope you weren't setting this up as a straw man argument. Even though you say you don't believe our government is evil, the taste left in the reader's mouth is that some people (like 9/11 Truthers) believe that the US government is evil. That isn't true for the movement or for me.
As was already hinted, "government" is a very broad word. Admittedly, had you narrowed that to the Bush Administration being evil, yeah, that does come closer to hitting the nail on the head with me. Of course, I would prefer even that being narrowed down to the (PNAC) neo-con's and President Bush in the Bush Administration.
As for the word "evil," it also is fraught with connotations that I'll address later.
Mark Hiatt wrote:
"It really takes a negative view of human nature to believe that so many people could be involved in such an atrocity on their own people."
When you write "so many people", I believe that your perception varies greatly with mine on how many people it would take to carry out 9/11 from within our government. Because of this perception difference, I won't take offense of your implication that I have "a negative view of human nature," which I don't.
This perception difference may also come into play with your phrase "atrocity on [our] own people."
There is a vast difference in mind-set between a CEO and an office worker. At the stroke of a pen, the CEO can eliminate the livelihood of hundreds or thousands of office/factory workers without ever imparting the termination face-to-face with any of the departing employees, ushering them to the door, hearing the cries of the employees' families, or suffering bankruptcy or foreclosure. Business is business. Nothing personal.
Likewise, the chess master has a vastly different mind-set than the pieces he manipulates on the chess board. Sacrificing a pawn or more is required to win.
For the sake of discussion, let's set 9/11 aside for a moment. (You can even assume that the government's story about 9/11 is true for the next few paragraphs.) A high level decision was made to put thousands of American lives at risk by invading Afghanistan, a decision that seemed justified at the time given 9/11.
However, those same high level people made a decision a year later to put thousands more American lives at even greater risk by invading Iraq. If we were to believe those same high level officials' words, our soldiers were at grave risk against Saddam's WMDs. (The officials' knowledge of the lack of WMD rigged the game. Had the WMDs not been a lie, we could have suffered the casualties in the first month of war that we have now. It also explains why we haven't attacked South Korea, who for sure has WMDs and for sure would make thousands of US casualties.)
The point is, if you take their stories at face value, our leaders had the mindset to sacrifice in far greater numbers more Americans than what was lost at 9/11.
Still taking their word about WMD and 9/11 at face value, our leaders' willingness to sacrifice human life in great numbers is shown in our choice of weapons (Depleted Uranium tipped missiles, white phosphor, etc.), in our war tactics, and in how we treat prisoners. (Can you say rendition and torture?) How many Iraqi people have died? Millions. The US had the opportunity at several junctures to change methods and even withdraw (after "mission accomplished") that could have stemmed the loss of life and damage to our reputation.
I won't go into the goals of the (PNAC) neo-cons in the Bush Administration and what they hoped to gain in Iraq. It was obviously important enough for them to make potentially far greater military sacrifices, assuming their words to be true.
Now that their words have been proven false and lies on so many fronts, how does that change their mindset of acceptable human loss? The Americans killed on 9/11 ends up being small in comparison to the lives lost and destroyed by the invasion. That collateral damage could be justified in what America gains in Iraq.
The government officials aren't dealing with individual lives. They are chess players moving pieces on a board.
Mark Hiatt wrote:
"Ask yourself if you would be capable of doing this...now why do you believe that you are an exception to the rule and that other people are murderers of their own fellow citizens."
Ask yourself if you would be capable of firing 20, 10, or even 1 person. This is the part of supervising and management that all people hate. Yes, showing the door to an incompetent employee might be the best thing for the company, but it is still an individual who requires an income to live and eat. This is very personal.
As you move up the corporate ladder, would you be capable of firing individuals in greater numbers? Would you be capable of shutting down factories or divisions?
My premise is that it gets easier as you move up, because you are no longer dealing with individuals but line items on a spreadsheet, pieces on a chess board. The thought process changes. The goals change.
Mark Hiatt wrote:
"I am not attacking you, but it saddens me to see people call the Bush administration dumb or evil. I agree that their policies are not what I agree with, but he is the President whether i like him or not, and I don't think the elite would help put an idiot in office...he is smart enough to do what they want him in there for."
You're right that the elite would not help put an idiot in office. Cheney is not an idiot. I'll even agree that "[Bush] is smart enough to do what they want him in there for."
You (and I) are just a dust speck on a pawn on the chessboard. What you don't see is what the elite want Bush/Cheney in office for.
They wanted the tax cuts. They wanted to be in Iraq. They want Iraq's oil, first to stop the flow to limit supply and thereby increase demand/price, and later to have control of the oil when Iraq becomes stable. They wanted war, because they make obscene profits. They even wanted the bubbles to burst on the stock market and the housing market.
You are missing that wealth is changing hands and that the elite get rich whether the economy goes up or it goes down. The elite have forewarning of when things are going bad; they get out of those stocks and markets. Like musical chairs, they unload their bad holdings to us unwitting lesser people. And once the economy hits rock bottom, the elite will sweep back in and buy everything up at bargain basement prices.
Mark Hiatt wrote:
"And as far as him being evil...come on, why do people always have to deem the people that they don't agree with as evil?"
You are making a sweeping generalization with this evil discussion. Disagreement doesn't make those on the other side evil. Deeds are what could make someone evil.
Torture, rendition, Iraqi death tolls in the millions, American soldier death toll at 4000+, American injuries at 20k+, lack of funding for the VA hospitals, stop-loss/extended-tours/repeat-tours send the toy soldiers back into battle until they break...
Yes, I call this evil.
Individually, the following aren't evil but they are when put together: the aftermath of Katrina, the bankruptcy bill, the tax breaks for the rich, ...
Mark Hiatt wrote:
"I believe that not only would they commit such a heinous act, but that if they would have been capable they would have been exposed at a much more visible level."
Your brain may have been going faster than your fingers were typing in the passage above. I think you meant to write:
"I believe that not only would they [NOT HAVE COMMITTED] such a heinous act, but that if they would have been capable, they would have been exposed at a much more visible level."
The key phrase is "I believe."
Changing people's beliefs is the hardest part.
If you would open your eyes, you would see that these people were indeed exposed on more visible levels. The government's 9/11 stories are so full of hole. The evidence is numerous and very clear. Hell, their fairy tale even defies the laws of physics.
[Moreover, don't you think that rendition and torture are heinous? Hasn't that been exposed on a visible level? Those orders came directly from the top.]
But you see, changing belief about what our government is capable of is a huge challenge, because it takes people to a most uncomfortable state. What do you do with the knowledge? What differences does it make? What does it mean for our country?
Mark Hiatt wrote:
"Another thing about the so-called evidence from the scientific community. Not everything is always as explainable as they make it out to be."
Don't go lumping evidence from the 9/11 scientific community into the same basket. If they stress anything in their analysis, it is that the government's so-called "scientific" investigations from NIST and other agencies started with foregone conclusions that they tried to tweak their analysis and modeling into, did not cover all possible explanations, did not fully cover even the scenarios they had, and in most cases ignored those explanations that could account for ~all~ factors (because those were the explanations that undermined the government's story). Gees, the 9/11 Commission Report doesn't even mention WTC-7, and the NIST report mentions it only in passing "that they don't know how it fell."
The Bush Administration is guilty of politicizing many institutions -- including scientific ones -- that should not be. A great example is the EPA in issuing statements shortly after 9/11 that it was safe at ground zero, despite scientific readings from other groups 2 miles away that showed it highly unsafe even at that distance. FEMA is another example. The NIST report on 9/11 also falls into this category.
"Watch what Ol' Noam Chomsky has to say about the absurdity of conspiracy theorists...he makes a good point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc"
I respect Noam Chomsky, but on this issue he is wrong. It is this belief issue.
A quote from David Ray Griffin:
"People of faith" are often accused of allowing their faith to override evidence. With regard to 9/11, the greatest obstacle to seeing the truth - that 9/11 was an inside job - is not the lack of evidence but what can be called "nationalist faith" - the belief that America is the "exceptional nation," whose leaders never deliberately do anything truly evil, at least to their own citizens."
Set your VCR to record Comcast local cable channel 22 on Saturday from 4 to 6 a.m., when they often run the DVD from BYU physics professor Dr. Steven Jones.
Dear Mr. Hiatt,
Set your VCR to record Comcast cable channel 22 tomorrow (Saturday) from 4 to 6 a.m. Watch it at your liesure.
The USA had been supplying materials like ammunition, aircraft, and even pilots to England to fight the Germans well before D-Day. Beyond that, USA was unwilling to get involved in Europe, because of the losses still remembered from WWI. FDR needed something to motivate the USA into getting involved.
The USA had broken the Japanese military codes before the war. The USA purposely was egging on the Japanese by refusing to trade steel with them. Against the objections of Navy officers, all of those war ships were docked close together in Pearl Harbor. The major losses of Pearl Harbor did not happen out of the blue.
The American people were told that a Navy ship was attacked by North Vietnam. Between that and the "domino theory of communism", the USA got their fear induced justification to escalate our involvement there.
In reality, the Navy ship was attacked by Israeli fighters; the fact that they were allies was how the fighters got so close and took out the communication antennas first thing. They bombed the shit out of the boat and strafed the hell out it, repeatedly. There weren't supposed to be any survivors. The ship didn't sink. One of the radios had been powered down for maintenance, which is why the "intelligent" missiles didn't hone in on its signals to take it out. In between or after bombing runs, it was powered up to transmit a distress signal. Survivors of the attack were sworn to secrecy regarding who really attacked them.
Mark Hiatt wrote:
"... I really don't believe that even 150 people would all join in on the murder of their fellow people."
What you "believe" is just that.
Look at Dafur. Look at Sudan. Hell, even look at Iraq. We have lots of examples where people "murder their fellow people." You think America is some God blessed exception? We murdered (American-) Indians. We enslaved and in cases murdered African (-Americans). We incarcerated Japanese (-Americans).
Few people know that Dresden was a refugee city that we did not bomb like we did Hamburg and Berlin. We kept it pristine so that we could try out a new type of "fire bomb," and boy did they work well in wiping out that city. If memory serves me, one or both Hiroshima and Nagasaki (sp) were also pristine cities so that we could try out our new atomic bombs and ascertain the damage.
Our DU ammunitions used in Afghanistan and Iraq don't make us morally better today.
To those insiders who assisted in the 9/11 attacks, it wasn't murder. It was collateral damage. It was the Pearl Harbor motivation factor that would enable them to achieve much higher goals that they outlined in the Project for New American Century (PNAC) manifestos.
Mark Hiatt wrote:
"What about air traffic control people? Were they all in on it, too. Did their supervisors tell them in advance that this would happen? I mean a lot of people had to know what was happening?"
The air traffic controllers were not in on it. They did what they were supposed to do. They made ~NO~ mistakes. As much as the military in the several revisions of their timelines and stories that they presented to congress tried to blame the FAA, the fact remains that the FAA pulled off a flawless execution of a procedure never done in aviation history, namely the landing of every single flying aircraft at the nearest available airports. No errors whatsoever. How could it be that they could have -- not one, not two, not three, but four -- errors in SOP for things they do everyday on a day when they also performed a miraculous feat?
As part of the coincidence theory of 9/11, in June the protocols were changed regarding who got to make decisions regarding interception and shoot down. It was changed to involve Rumsfeld.
Another coincidence was that some big brass who was normally supposed to be in the loop was in some other big brass meeting that day, and this was the first day his temporary replacement had ever performed those duties.
Another coincidence was at least four military exercises being carried out on 9/11 that, coincidentally, practiced the hijacking of planes and flying them into high profile targets. Yes, there really was some confusion about what was real world and what was exercise. Oh, and who was coordinating these exercises? Cheney.
No, the air traffic controllers escalated the issue appropriately as they saw them according to standard operating procedures (SOP). It was at the upper escalation levels involving bigger brass (those part of the conspiracy), who slow walked the launch orders, who sent the interceptors the wrong direction at slow speeds, and who otherwise muddled on purpose their SOP. (And who destroyed air traffic controller tapes... cut them into little pieces and distributed them over many trash cans.)
I could believe that one of the targets could be hit, but not three. I've read reports from air traffic controllers who said that had SOP been followed, none of the planes would have reached their targets without fighter interception.
19 hijackers might be able to get onto the planes (but I find it questionable that they did so without their names -- or any Arab names -- appearing on the flight rosters and without them being caught on air port video.) But these 19 hijackers did not have the ability to change SOP on the ground.
Mark Hiatt wrote:
"How would you approach somebody about this idea of knocking down two buildings with people in them? How could you be sure you could trust 150 people...were they all part of a group that sat down and planned this?"
Technically, it was four buildings: WTC-1, WTC-2, WTC-7, and the Pentagon. I'm sure that the sales pitch didn't involve the catch phrase "buildings with people in them."
For that matter, the one and only Pentagon wedge with the fewest people in it (because it was being renovated) and farthest from Rumsfeld was the one they hit. They would have done a lot more damage if they would have simply creamed themselves into the roof instead of an aerial stunt that came in so low is (supposedly) clipped light posts yet didn't scrape engines along the Pentagon lawn.
Additionally, it could be that they planned a delay between the impact and collapse precisely so people could be evacuated. Maybe they thought that both towers would be evacuated once the first plane hit, thereby further reducing casualties.
These people involved did not rise to their level without an ability to be trusted and to keep their mouth shut.
Mark Hiatt wrote:
"You believe what you want, but I think it is not really probable. I mean, how could they cover their asses so well that it would never leak? 150 people with no consciences?"
First of all, if you record and watch the show (and do even some rudimentary research into 9/11), you'll see that they did ~NOT~ cover their asses so well. That is the problem.
Case in point, they built into their plans so many redundancies just to make sure, for example, that the ~THREE~ buildings in NYC fell, that their collapse becomes unbelievable. Free fall speed? Not just breaking concrete, not just crushing concrete, but pulverizing it into fine powder? Visible squib charges preceding the collapse? Ejecting debris hundreds of feet laterally? Falling into its own foot print? Breaking steel pieces into convenient 30' lengths?
That is just one example of a glaring "over plan". There are many others.
Secondly, those who were involved have had handsome gains in jobs, rank, salary, prestige.
Thirdly, it isn't that difficult to keep someone from leaking information. If the real danger of losing what they gained isn't enough, it is known how to reach their families.
From my own life experience, my "devil-may-care" attitude towards rocking the employment boat by, say, standing up for "the right decision" went through radical shifts once (a) I had a mortgage, (b) I got married, (c) I had children.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Here is a quote from another posting of mine that you obviously missed.
"When the political and judicial systems (and the 4th Estate) have been so thoroughly gamed by those in power, your lame suggestion that you'll recant your cheerleading for the government’s 9/11 fairy tale once the 9/11 perpetrators are tried, convicted, and sent to jail is a bit like a 1776 American colonist saying that he'll support the revolution and the United 13 States of America once the King, his army, and his loyalists are tried and convicted in the King's court and put in the King's jail."
From Mr. Hawley:
Mr. Bridges is just well unbalanced.
As far as 9/11 conspiracy theory Max even your buddies don't buy it.
You let me know when you win in court and I'll apologize right here.
Until then you are just another conspiracy theory nut , that sees black helicopters in the clouds.
There hasn't been a secret kept in Washington in years. If someone passes gas or makes a comment at Denny's it is on you tube and the Net in about five seconds.
The idea that the number of people required to pull off the 9/11 conspiracy you believe in , could keep all this a secret is ridiculous. After all these so called experts according to you did such a bad job . avg. citizens like you who are not renowned in the fields required to pull it off figured out their plan easily.
So these experts ion the field are such amateurs that amateurs could figure out their evil plan in days after it happened.
That does not even pass the laugh test.
You don't think we should be in Iraq. Great then prove your accusations in a court of law and send those responsible to jail.
And so that you didn't miss anything I said behind your back:
______________
The feverish nature with which (Hawley) and other right-wing hard-liners defend Bush policy online by repeating dubious claims and ignoring blatant acts of duplicity and their connection to outright crimes almost raises the question of whether (they) are paid government mouth-pieces.
Yep, I know this is all far-fetched. I don't half believe it myself. Hawley will have a field day with it. I already know the words he will use to belittle it and me: conspiracy theory, loon, nut, crazy...
Alas, my purpose in being here is to stand witness to truth and to record for history that Americans weren't all lemmings.
So, dear readers, ask yourself this.
Given the Bush Administration's track record of disinformation, misinformation, and media manipulation, if they were inclined to monitor and "steer" internet forums (a stated PNAC goal), what form would that interference take?
The half of me that does entertain this notion recalls that ex-military, security guard, Cali-foreigner Hawley in this forum and others stomps his black paratrooper boots quickly and repeatedly onto the throats of views that deviated from the (Mc)Bush platform and from "Amerika-ueber-alles". He is intolerant and dismissive of any and all evidence no matter how overwhelming and solid. He rarely concedes anything of substance. And when he comes close to a concession, it is a back-handed confession: "I'll offer an apology for my beliefs once they have been charged, tried, convicted, and sent to jail. Only then will I believe. Until then, don't spill your crumbs on the flag I have wrapped around my ass."
If his paycheck doesn't explain his positions, then we'll probably owe him condolences on his diminishing mental health.
May this enlightment, however dim or bright, help guide your future interchanges with Mr. Hawley.
{To Mr. Hawley}
All of the classic signs of age-induced dementia: repeating yourself and talking to yourself.
This thread is so classic you, Mr. Hawley, and very funny.
What is the count on your detractors in the forum now? I kind of lost count in the "Craig Hawley" septic overrun.
The one who lists your telephone number does make a few good points in the most striking way. Maybe as the damage from getting your number inserted into various telemarketer databases begins to take shape, you'll learn something from it, like the protection that a "user name" can afford for both you and Lynne. As if I'm not sounding like a broken record in repeating this friendly advice. What names did Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, and even Samuel Clemens write under? It isn't something new.
Let's see what "Craig Hawley sucks", "Craig Hawley likes it from behind", "Craig Hawley of Reseda, CA 91335 (818) 345-1336" and the other "Craig Hawley"'s have to say about this good advice.
This thread really has me ROL, and I'm not one to usually use such cryptic internet-isms. :)
{Actual posting by Craig Hawley.}
[QUOTE id="3c684582-0984-4dd9-853f-5bbe8c020bb9"]
Nice try sweet. Do you think anyone is buying the different nicks from the same person.
Obviously you just don't learn as I have heard all your lame taunts before. Yea I am a stalker and a pedophile and yada yada yada. Your arguments are as juvenile as switching nicks to pretend to be another person.
Did you forget the time you used my name as a nick and tried to post things like I was anti this and that.
Anyone can read the archives and see what you did.
Please you are so transparent.
You are not nudging me anywhere , although you may have doubled my posts now just to tick you off. I am sure people that know who you are hiding behind your anonymous nicks will want to thank you for the added posts.
Let's see I could write some of your future nicks if you would like. Since you are so lame let me just put your lame nicks for me up now and save the reading public time.
Craig Hawley likes little boys.
Craig Hawley is into bestiality.
Etc , etc........
Grow up.
All one has to do is to read the archives and see who the juvenile morons are on this thread.
I don't curse my opponents wallow in it and have no vocabulary.
I back up my opinions and calling people names with facts why they deserve to be called that name.
My opponents say pithy , witty things like Craig Hawley likes it from behind ( then snicker like the children they are because they said naughty words lol ).
I win my arguments and my opponents just get frustrated when they lose.
It is obvious who is losing and who is not. Losers lose their tempers and decorum and resort to profanity and mindless childish grade school names. I am still waiting for one of these geniuses to call me a doody head. LMAO!
Just read the archives and read what they write here now and any thinking person can see who the idiots are. They can't really attack me arguments because they are based in fact and truth.
So they resort to cursing me out and playing childish games.
I guess this is where I am supposed to change my nick and become twenty people. Don't need to my arguments are sound and my integrity intact unlike my opponents who have no integrity from the beginning as they refuse to identify themselves thus holding themselves to real judgement by their peers.
They say anything because they re accountable for nothing. They are weak and most are scared little geeks that in real life would not say hi let alone talk trash like they do here.
Until they come out from behind their masks they are just cyber bandits and not worthy of any serious consideration.
I am real they are just cyber phantoms. I take responsibility for what I say in here and the real world while they do not.
WEAK WEAK WEAK
Bring it on you pinheads it just makes me stronger and point out to those reading what a intolerant . violent group you left wing nut jobs really are.
Notice people reading that those calling for my death and using profanity and juvenile names are Liberal morons who tout tolerance and non violence , but all it takes is a conservative to use simple words to get them so angry they betray their real faces.
Thanks you you pinheads as every attack you launch in such an out of control juvenile manner just serves me not you.
God you people are monumentally stupid.
And the old man leaves you mental midgets with an LOL just to tick you off.
I am a freedom fighter for age discrimination , allowing the old to revel in the use of LOL previously VERBOTEN to us old folks.
[/QUOTE]
{Posting from the aforementioned alias.}
Your verbosity only proves our point. In your very own words, you talk of your impurity and immorality.
[QUOTE id="3c684582-0984-4dd9-853f-5bbe8c020bb9"]
Nice try sweet. Do you think anyone is buying the different nicks from the same person.
...
Yea I am a stalker and a pedophile and yada yada yada. Your arguments are as juvenile as switching nicks to pretend to be another person.
...
Did you forget the time you used my name as a nick and tried to post things like I was anti this and that.
...
You are not nudging me anywhere , although you may have doubled my posts now just to tick you off. I am sure people that know who you are hiding behind your anonymous nicks will want to thank you for the added posts.
...
Craig Hawley likes little boys.
Craig Hawley is into bestiality.
...
[/QUOTE]
I'll grant you that the above truly is a most glorious, juvenile prank of the power of being the editor. However, they are indeed your very words.
You went on to write:
"I back up my opinions and calling people names with facts why they deserve to be called that name."
How about if we simplify your life's online calling by 50%. I would be happy with just:
"I back up my opinions."
Please in all of your future list correspondence, leave off and leave out "calling people names" and "facts (?!!) why they deserve to be called that name."
Your opinions with supporting material ought to be strong enough to make your case. As such, piling on the insults and the condescension from your lofty years is unnecessary and only detracts from your credibility both in the argument you were making and from you as a person.
Once you have made your case, how about shutting up, Grandpa. Stop rambling on and making this valuable venue for community discussion your personal blog space about what you were doing at that very moment, like torching up one of your medical Mary Jane joints. There are websites that specialize in offering you a blog service, where you can get right on down and dirty in your irregular bowel movements or your witty descriptions of the same. Spare us the details.
What PhD's do you hold that gives you the right to take on the tone of a Professor with the need to teach us and school us in your... world views and distortions of life? If you are not going to approach us students as your intellectual equals and if you are constantly going to talk down to us, why should we consider a conversation with you? You have all the answers, while we seemingly have none. As such, we can't teach you anything, because your mind won't let you listen. Talk about a waste for fricken time.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Your last string of postings, mostly to yourself, prove my assertion that they aren't well written, aren't logical, and aren't useful.
No sense giving you more mileage than you deserve on my website by publishing your hate there again. If you want to post your side of your debates in their entirety, create your own blog. Then you won't have to worry about your postings getting deleted.
Half of me thinks that you are an instigator paid by our federal government. Your boastings of using California medical marijuana is one of your entrapments. Constant mention of your family members and where they might be found is another. Your bravado in egging others on is yet another.
The other half of me thinks about the schoolyard wisdom to not point your finger at someone because you'll have three fingers of your hand pointing back at yourself. It is thoroughly applicable to your projection of your limited mental faculties onto me.
Send me a snail-mail postcard. The sheep will love it.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
You live your shallow online existence by straw man argumentation whereby your manhood gets a Viagra-like boost every time you think you've torn one down that you've built up.
Your comments about www.MaxBridges.us illustrates this quite nicely.
You seem to be all offended because I did not copy your original postings in their entirety when I re-published ~my~ responses on ~my~ website, except for select attributed quotations from you embedded in ~my~ writing.
Here is a quote from ~my~ site's mission statement on the "About Me" page:
"The purpose of [www.MaxBridges.us] is to give me, Maxwell Bridges, a venue for my opinions. ... This website gives outlet not only to my opinions but also to a wealth of supporting material which helped mold my thought."
So, Mr. Hawley, where does it say its purpose is to be equal opportunity or fair-and-balanced and is required to give voice to you and your ignorance & hate?
Even if I was inclined to, technically I don't have the copyright to any of your published work, except for short passages that I quote and attribute. Who has the copyright to your postings? You and the forum owner. Do I want either one coming after me for blatant copyright infringement? Why expose myself to such abuse when the quality of your postings is hardly worth it.
Had you been paying attention while exploring my one-sided version of our exchange, you would have noticed my re-published version has a link at the very beginning to the source forum where any reader can read (what's left of) both sides more-or-less in context.
Of course, had you been paying attention while the debate was going on, you would have also noticed when certain postings went missing because they were flagged as abusive, which was a motivation for me to take steps to preserve at least my words.
You also seem to be offended by the fact that your writing, your logic, and your argumentation don't rise to the level of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, or John Adams, which in turn could justify preservation and re-publication. Ignoring your HATE, the reason you come up way short can be summarized in one word: EDIT.
You write online by the seat-of-your-pants. You don't spell-check or grammar check. You don't edit, edit, edit to make your argumentation and case much stronger. Were you to take the time for this most critical of all writing tasks, your temper would cool and your unnecessary personal jabs would fade away. For every posting of mine you see, there are probably three previous versions on my hard-disk.
You confuse quantity with quality. Your frequent short posts rarely say much worth remembering. Your long posts are all over the map and oscillate from potentially making a rational point and making an irrational insult. You confuse being first to respond with being thoughtful and relevant to the discussion.
Final points.
My website doesn't sell anything. It does give free advertising and links to other sites, such as www.911tv.org, where all sorts of DVDs on 9/11 can be obtained.
Were I to categorize the small number of exchanges (including Mr. Hawley, Mr. B, and a neighbor) that were re-published to my website, their group title would be: "The Depth and Tenacity of America's Willful Ignorance." They are textbook cases of close-minded Americans who believe that a strong military, military use, and torture among other atrocities are somehow part of Jesus H. Christ's teachings. My less than satisfactory encounters with humanity.
No, you can't attribute the pointing fingers statement to me. It isn't mine and has only been around schoolyards for ages.
{How ironic that on a subsequent editing pass around 2008-09-11, the author decided to add Craig Hawley's words in the cases where they were saved to assist with accurate quotations.}
Dear Mr. Hawley,
You claim that I denigrate you on my website without allowing you any rebuttal! Don't make me laugh. Another straw man argument.
You had ample actual rebuttals (out the wazoo, no less) in the Coloradoan forum and this forum. The very first sentences of my website postings about you take a reader to a point in those forums where the reader can scroll/page forward and backwards to receive more Hee-Haw-ley than they'll be able to stomach.
Doubtless, most readers will find my decision to exclude your writings from ~my~ website justified.
You wrote a lot of nonsense in support of the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory and a lot of unfounded personal attacks on me, but all of it avoided pointed questions, which my condensed version makes clear at each break where I had to bring us back to the subject, repeat the question, and answer it for you.
In fact, your whole 9/11 debunking rebuttal is built on patriotic feelings, personal opinions of American righteousness, and religious beliefs that (Republican) American leaders can do no wrong.
These are not facts. This is not hard evidence.
But your mental conviction is so strong, it leads you to slam all hard evidence that clearly proves American leaders can do wrong and have done wrong, and consequently that America isn't so right in the eyes of God today -- whether or not we are talking specifically about 9/11.
In fact, the only thing you could have written that might have merited further exposure and publication by me would have been a serious, scholarly attempt to answer the 9/11 questions I posed or to take on the challenge of debunking the 9/11 materials sent to you. This is beyond you, beyond anyone, beyond even the government and its proven well-established propaganda machine and co-conspirators in Corporate Media. A lie is very hard to prove true, particularly when all of the hard evidence points against it.
Mr. Hawley,
Given that this thread within this forum is your personal blog space and fan club, it is funny of you to ask why the lack of support of others. I could very well ask the same of you.
For the fool-hardy who might still be reading this thread (or who might visit this digital archive years from now), they'll assess that I had my side of the 9/11 debate well under control. You, not so well.
What was the other forum about Students being mum on the war? Same argument applies to students being mum on 9/11. Combine that with the end of the semester projects and final exams. Combine that with the general overall level of media over-saturation and fluffy media distractions that substitute for information and discourse.
Why don't more people line up behind 9/11 truth?
The first hurdle is overcoming their own beliefs about America and the disconnect between the Pledge of Allegiance recited from our earliest days in school and burned in our hearts, and the consequences of actual poor, malfeasant governance.
For those who claim to have an open-mind, the hurdle is pushing away the distractions for them to focus on things of substance.
For those who keep their minds open and research (9/11, the origins of Iraq, US military involvement, torture), the hurdle is depression from the realization of what the truth really is and that they alone can do very little to correct it.
For those with even the mildest calling to chase down the undecided or uninformed stray sheep, the hurdle is blind patriots who launch never-ending personal attacks to shutdown hard even the slightest notion that America was broken starting at its highest levels and that America no longer embodied its highest ideals.
You know, if you had any decency and if you truly loved your country, you would stay out of subsequent 9/11 discussions until you've learned more. You help no one until you avail yourself of the small compilation of the best evidence about the 9/11 fraud and thoroughly vet or destroy it. Didn't you learn from the military to "know your enemies?" Everything that the 9/11 patriots stand for is in the material in your possession. If you don't study it and learn it, your can't defend the government's story from attacks based on it. (Of course, this assignment isn't without danger, for behind any page could shine the blinding light of truth which could then shatter your most cherished beliefs of blessed America.)
Meanwhile, while I chase after the still plentiful stray sheep appearing here and there, let others carry your debunking torch while I feed them unfettered.
{Posting from the alias given above.}
Hey there, Craig Hawley of Reseda, CA 91335 and Craig Hawley sucks. Sorry to leave you hanging. Had things to do for final deadlines this week on a couple of projects. I didn't think anything could be more annoying that a normal Craig Hawley posting, until he posted more... and then 91335 topped him with multiples. Brutal. I don't subscribe to that and the gang-banging was bad enough, but it had me ROFLMAO. Hawley deserved it.
In his 9/11 ramblings, Maximillian made a good point about editing before posting.
But I gotta say, if "Craig Hawley" isn't a dick, I mean nick, then it sure is treated like one using his own definitions of aggressive online behavior. Check out this sampling:
- - juvenile
- - morons
- - Liberal losers
- - distortionist
- - I will never give up or tire of taking on Liberals and exposing them for the intolerant and violent people they really are
- - mental midgets
- - Liberal yahoos
- - Liberalism is a threat to our country every bit as evil and harmful as Al Queda.
- - college idiots
- - low life , scared little nerds
- - overcompensating violent profanity spouting retards
- - you are such a child
It ain't profanity, which are pretty much filler words anyway. Pretty childish and pretty consistent for the real Craig Hawley of Reseda, CA 91335 where ever he posts.
Mininum-Maximum is persistent with his urgings about 9/11. Maybe I'll record that 9/11 show he harps about Saturday morning at oh-dark-early. Thank God for Tivo. Bet the show will be pretty good after finals if I do some bowls beforehand. Then it might make cents.
Craig Hawley posted 5/04/08 @ 12:28 AM MST
[QUOTE id="f6c0db4e-ac1f-40aa-aaad-86c469491e07"]
Another explanation locates the problem in the effect of the medium on the sender rather than on the recipient. It is argued that the anonymity of the medium disinhibits correspondents, releasing profanity and other aggressive material which could be suppressed in circumstances of more obvious social control. Writers would thus dare to include in their messages offensive content that they would never have included in the past or would only have spoken aloud, in informal social circumstances.
Yet another approach focuses on cultural factors: it is argued that the subculture of hackers, computer hobbyists, and computer professionals in industry and the universities fosters anti-establishment values and behaviour with a resultant blurring of conventional lines between public and private domains and between work and play. These trends, in turn, may encourage uninhibited behaviour. Thus, persons not belonging to this subculture who are socialized into the practices now crystallizing in CMC may be encouraged to behave more aggressively than they would in pre-CMC forms of written communication
=========
I could list your phone number here and on every post I write on, ( over 100 ), but I am not as juvenile as these morons or you Max.
I have had many students at CSU support me and my posts. Not that I need anyone to support me. See Max I am like real Americans used to be. Unafraid of Liberal losers and there juvenile tactics.
I will never give up or tire of taking on Liberals and exposing them for the intolerant and violent people they really are while they lie and try to portray themselves as the most tolerant and anti violent people in America.
I have exposed them right here , as they have used profanity ( used by people that have nothing intelligent to say , and I have to give Max points for not employing such childish methods ), threatened my life , called for me to commit suicide and played many childish games with their inane nicks.
Now Max I am goi9ng to be published in the RamRepublic in their next issue , and showing that Liberalism is a threat to our country every bit as evil and harmful as Al Queda.
People that use anonymous nicks are more prone to violent and aggressive behavior and use profanity and make statements they never would in real life.
I find it highly enlightening that you use the rantings of a few college idiots to justify your attempt to discredit me , while ignoring the supporters of mine. You almost sound like the Liberal Media telling us that all is lost in Iraq and yet not listing one of the accomplishments we have made there.
So here Max read what they have found about anonymous nicks and the low life , scared little nerds that turn into overcompensating violent profanity spouting retards.
So thanks Max I am not surprised that this thread amuses you as you are such a child it would. Max also likes shiny objects over his crib at night. :)
FYI Max I could simply respond by changing my nick like they did and making it look like I have a dozen supporters on this thread trashing these mental midgets. But I do not need to resort to such juvenile tactics.
By the way I have your home address and phone and David J McSwane , Sean Reed , and all the rest of the Collegian staff.
I could easily list them here if you like Max. But then wouldn't that mean you would be as stupid as you accuse me of being for listing your real name.
[/QUOTE]
Dear Mr. Hawley,
I wrote something that seemed rather logical. I asked you to harken back to your military training to "know your enemies," military experience by the way that seems to grow from forum to forum. (You claimed you served as a chopper gunner in Vietnam and now it seems you volunteered for Iraq in 1991 and at some point in the current Iraqi occupation. And you are how old exactly today? What year were you in Vietnam and how old were you, Mr. MENSA, apparently too stupid to use those tested smarts to get a college deferment? What exactly did you do in Iraq on either tour?)
Regardless, for a self-proclaimed, very humble, very honest, military man such as yourself you have recently demonstrated that you seem know how to crack a book based on the dictionary definitions you offer.
What is so difficult about cracking another book in your possession and doing some analysis? For a man of you intelligence, you would make very quick work of thoroughly destroying it. And then you could be a hero for having taken down the whole 9/11 Truth Movement.
And your highly intelligent, non-aggressive response is to call me an arrogant twit and a loon and to provide me definitions of the same. I dare you to walk into a biker bar and call the biggest, badest roughneck that. The point isn't whether your 6'6" 250 lbs. could take him; the point is, wouldn't those non-profanity words be considered aggressive?
After you have re-read the words you posted about aggressive online behavior, here's a quote for you from the inside cover of the book you got as a gift. It's from Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA:
"David Ray Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official US Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of US foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods. This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations, International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the US) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the US Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the US, caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen."
{Posting from the alias above.}
I, Craig Scott Hawley of Reseda, CA, am a habitual liar.
I wrote:
"I spent three years in the Army and have volunteered for both Iraq conflicts and support the VA and several units in combat right now."
The spin is to plant the thought that I actually put on a uniform and put boots to sand, when really I did no such thing. I elaborate my lies by saying:
"I volunteered to go in the Army so did not want or need an deferment. I went in June of 1975 and Vietnam was just ending."
What I don't tell people is that by 1975, the anti-war movement is at an all time high. I was as out-of-step with public opinion on US foreign policy then as I am now.
Another thing I don't tell my college Republican fan club is what happened two months before I went in:
"April 30, 1975 - At 8:35 a.m., the last Americans, ten Marines from the embassy, depart Saigon, concluding the United States presence in Vietnam. North Vietnamese troops pour into Saigon and encounter little resistance. By 11 a.m., the red and blue Viet Cong flag flies from the presidential palace. President Minh broadcasts a message of unconditional surrender. The war is over."
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1969.html
So, I'm not really a Vietnam veteran as I claimed in too many postings to count. I never saw action. I never set foot in Vietnam while in the service, if indeed I served.
Of course, I'm not finished lying about my personal past. I just had to add:
"I did volunteer for both Iraq conflicts and wanted to go into an Air Cav unit doing what I was trained to do. I was told I was to old to go into combat and turned down."
I was too old in 1991 at the age of -- if I can keep my lies straight -- 34 to go into the Air Cav to serve in the first Gulf War.
Of course, I'm lying.
The maximum age for the Active Army was 35 in 1991 (although Congress set that to 42 in 2006). Prior service makes that maximum age flexible. For example, another viable choice I had was the Army National Guard, whose maximum age for non-prior service is 39. They would have accepted me with or without my highly decorated combat experience in Vietnam.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlstandards.htm
But I'm a crazy old fox repeating the same mistakes over and over. Either I forgot that they rejected me in 1991 for being too old, or I'm too stupid to do the math that would make me 46 in 2003, well above the maximum age of 35 for Active Army, I tell people that I tried to enlist again. I'm such a good liar.
As for crazy Max and his 9/11 stories, I can't beat the guy with logic, can't beat him with reason, can't beat him with evidence, so I have to lie and spin his words.
Here's what I lied about what Max said (and he didn't):
"The most disturbing thing about your post is that you now call for some global body to start usurping our sovereignty and telling us who will go to jail and will not. ... I said I would apologize if you could get convictions in our system of justice not some outside body. I find it reprehensible that a man that professes such intellect , could even suggest the UN be this unbiased third party to try an convict our government."
Of course, Max said no such thing. It was all froth and spin from a quote by Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA, who has more credibility than I do.
I can't be bothered to read David Ray Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" which Silly Max sent me to see if Bill Christison or even crazy Max has a point. I need to kick up some sand into the eyes of my detractors:
"To suggest that a world body should now run our country and we are somehow under this world bodies power. With that statement alone I now feel comfortable in calling you a traitor. Before I just thought you were a confused American , but now I see you hate America."
Of course, I'm lying.
I'm the true traitor. And to hide my betrayal of my country, I must attack, attack, attack.
What was it that Max actually wrote above:
"[T]he schoolyard wisdom [is] to not point your finger at someone because you'll have three fingers of your hand pointing back at yourself. It is thoroughly applicable to your projection of your limited mental faculties onto me."
Insane and unbalanced mad Max didn't realize how prophetic his words would turn out to be when, exchanging "you" for "me", I wrote:
"I thank [me], as now [I] have lost credibility and [my] other ideas whether good or bad will be marginalized by [my] ignorant comment."
I, Craig Scott Hawley, am a habitual liar and prove it every day.
Mr. Hawley,
It appears your fan "Craig Hawley ... is a LIAR" beat me to a response. And you are so obsessed in defending your delusions and having the last word, you beat me from getting a word in edgewise as well.
As "Craig Hawley ... is a LIAR" rightly points out, you put words in my mouth saying that I "now call for some global body to start usurping our sovereignty."
Repeating my age-old complaint about you, you obviously can't read and can't pass a reading comprehension test based on the way you spin what you read. The quote in question was from Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA, not from me. And even he didn't call for that "usurping our sovereignty."
Talk about a straw man argument of gigantic proportions! Set it up. Knock it down.
And where do you get off calling me a traitor?!!! Are you also saying that senior CIA officials are treasonous?
Craig Hawley is a (Mc)Bush Propaganda Minister and loyal student of Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall, who said:
"[T]he people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
http://www.harpers.org/sb-the-bush-administration-godwin-1157058126.html
In your response to "Craig Hawley ... is a LIAR", you wrote:
"It would be an exercise in futility to waste the World Courts time investigating something that they had no power to enforce."
Investigation and enforcement are two different issues. The UN or World Court wouldn't need to enforce anything from their findings. Once the truth comes out from an independent third party investigation, citizens of the US would purge the US government of the criminals and enablers. Woe, to the pandering hate-mongers like you!
The reason you don't want an independent third party investigation (from the UN or whomever) is because you know the US's present judicial and political systems has been corrupted.
A quote from me last week that still applies:
"When the political and judicial systems (and the 4th Estate) have been so thoroughly gamed by those in power, your lame suggestion that you'll recant your cheerleading for the government’s 9/11 fairy tale once the 9/11 perpetrators are tried, convicted, and sent to jail is a bit like a 1776 American colonist saying that he'll support the revolution and the United 13 States of America once the King, his army, and his loyalists are tried and convicted in the King's court and put in the King's jail."
What's the difference between being "in the Army in the Vietnam Era" and being a "Vietnam Veteran"?
Splitting hairs, are we, Mr. Hawley? I don't know whether you used only one or both in your previous debates with me, but what you deliberately wanted all readers to believe erroneously was that Helicopter Door Gunner Craig Hawley sat on such whirly-birds taking fire in Vietnam during the conflict. I remember distinctly you expanding one of my insults to you and you alone and saying I had insulted all "Vietnam Veterans." Based on your own admitted starting dates of service (June 1975) and when the conflict ended (April 1975), neither "Vietnam Veteran" nor "Vietnam Era" veteran apply to you. Thank you, "Craig Hawley ... is a LIAR," for pointing this out.
You are indeed a liar. You are dishonest to the core.
Makes you indeed...
An insincere whore. A deceitful government troll. A two-faced instigator. A mendacious troublemaker. A domestic enemy to our Constitution. A home-grown terrorist. An unapologetic (Mc)Bush cheerleader.
Mr. Hawley, I know you well enough to know that you will ~ALWAYS~ have the last word in this forum.
Before I leave you for the other "Craig Hawley" anti-fans to ravage you -- with my blessing --, I must say that I can't believe that you call yourself an American and an American Patriot. Your last few postings prove that you don't know the meaning of the words. You dishonor the very flag you wrap around your ass. Your step-son in the military and in Iraq would be ashamed of your actions, and you embarrass to no end your step-daughter at CSU filling up "her" CSU community forums with your dung. The damage done to your credibility and whatever respect I and others might have had for you is monumental.
Dear Mr. Home-Grown Homeland Security Terrorist & Liar Craig Hawley,
That American flag you tattooed on your butt gave you brain damage, and those (few) MySpace friends' members who rise to salute it are more interested in the reaction to the crazy crap you squirt in your postings than the diarrhea itself, like Jerry Springer show voyeurs.
Who's avoiding what, Mr. Hawley?
Smother us with irrelevant and UNEDITED postings of your famed supporters and lamer jokes, but don't address the issue of why I have called you:
"A liar. Dishonest to the core. An insincere whore. A deceitful government troll. A two-faced instigator. A mendacious troublemaker. A domestic enemy to our Constitution. A home-grown terrorist. An unapologetic (Mc)Bush war-monger."
You purposely gave every one the impression that you were a Vietnam Veteran and damn close to being a veteran of both Gulf Wars, such is the level of the flag on your butt, your deceit, and your narcissistic desire to build up your online image.
Normally, one would ask, "what else have you lied about?"
Of course, the obvious answer is every misstatement and reframing of an opponent's points into (poorly written) straw man arguments than honest seekers of truth must constantly call you on and correct. In this a fourth version of my response to you on this subject, I deleted the specific instances of the dishonesty in your last postings. I tire of it.
Like a Second City avatar, your life as told to us on the internet is as fake as your Vietnam combat experience at the door of a Huey helicopter gun ship.
Your step-son in the military in Iraq is probably a fiction, because you bring him up to garner sympathy only whenever someone has you up against the ropes and to radically change the subject. If you truly loved him, for him you would be opening your eyes to everything about his military engagement including the fraudulent justifications for the war, so that he wouldn’t be screwed over like true “Vietnam Era Veterans” were. Aren’t you concerned about him being used like a toy soldier, thrown into battle again and again until he’s broken, if not permanently, if not physically, then mentally?
Your step-daughter at CSU is also probably another lie to justify your monitoring of this forum, as is the episode of her supposed harassment by a CSU student angered at you for your postings here. If you truly loved her, you would have changed your ways. First and foremost, you would have posted using a different name. Second, you would have turned down your hate. Third, you wouldn’t bring her or your wife up. Instead, you set her out there like bait and egg people on. Not the signs of a loving step-dad.
You probably don’t smoke medical marijuana. You just put that out there like bait again to get the dope smokers talking and exposing their predilections. I mean really! If you really smoked pot, you wouldn’t be such a bend-over Republican and you wouldn’t be so closed-minded. You would at least consider the connections and ramifications brought to you. You’d be like, “It *is* a conspiracy, man!”
Your postings prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not MENSA smart. It wouldn't surprise me if you were 4'6" and 250 lbs instead of 6'6".
You probably don’t even hold the views you spew. You’re paid to monitor this and 10 other forums, which is why your postings are regularly the first, last, and in the middle (a huge time suck) so you can justify your wages for the week. You’ve got your talking points that you’re free to wrap crap around and call your own, but hit them regularly you must. Top of the list is to squash any citizens’ groups discussing 9/11 with open minds; slam them down as loonies as quickly as they pop up. Next on the list is to stamp down consideration of the fraudulent reasons for the Iraq war and other “unpatriotic” musings. Your paid-per-posting status explains why no one can ever convince you of anything that wasn’t blessed by the Bush Administration. Seriously, given the real-world examples of how the Bush Administration manipulated media and given that control of the internet is a PNAC goal, you personify exactly the form that such manipulation of this online forum would take.
Congratulations! I tire of dialoging with you. You’ve become a fake person.
The sad part is, because I believe that your step-son is as much a lie as you are a Vietnam Veteran, I no longer pray for his safe return from Iraq. In fact, if his return is to a two-year VA waiting list to get into a mental institution for his PTSD or in a transfer tube to Dover, let that be your blinding moment of truth and reckoning for your despicable politics. God works in mysterious ways.
__________________
To anyone desiring meaningful discourse from Mr. Hawley, keep in mind the Karl Rove Lessons of Online Debate that he practices religiously.
Lesson #1: The first part of any response should be to personally attack the opponent.
Lesson #2: Put incorrect words into your opponent's mouth.
Lesson #3: Misconstrue your opponent's message purposely so as to build a straw man argument that is easier to knock down than your opponent's real argument.
Lesson #4: Take all of the weaknesses in your own position and project them onto your opponent, whether or not true. Later when the opponent picks up how the weakness is really yours, you can point to their unoriginality in throwing it back at you.
Lesson #5: Rather than addressing your opponent's points head-on, insult their intelligence instead and extrapolate your claim of their lack of intelligence as being the reason why their points fail.
Lesson #6: Purposely mislabel your points as "fact", so that it is harder for your opponent to question it.
Lesson #7: Repeat your lie over and over until it sinks in as a possible truth.
{Posting from the alias above.}
Maxwell wrote:
"Your step-son in the military in Iraq is probably a fiction, because you bring him up to garner sympathy only whenever someone has you up against the ropes and to radically change the subject."
Craig wrote:
"Max also said my Step Son doesn't exist. He does and I am simply pointing out that Max is a liar and thus not to be trusted in anything he says."
Maxwell's sentence and Craigs first sentence are not equal. The word "probably" does not denote certainty.
Just because Maxwell wrote his doubts about the existance of Craig's step-son does mean he is a liar. False conclusion.
==========
Maxwell wrote:
"Your step-daughter at CSU is also probably another lie to justify your monitoring of this forum, as is the episode of her supposed harassment by a CSU student angered at you for your postings here."
Craig Wrote:
"You conveniently leave out the fact that Max said that my Step Daughter does not exist."
The two statements are not equal for reasons already explained about the word "probably."
Interestingly enough, when the CIA and NIE reports were given to the Bush Administration, exactly these kinds of words of uncertainty were purged before they were leaked to the press or given to other organizations.
Maxwell does seem to have some justification in mentioning the Karl Rove Lessons of Online Debate that Craig seems to practice.
==========
The point Maxwell seemed to be making about Craig's step-daughter:
"If you truly loved your [step-daughter], you would have changed your ways. First and foremost, you would have posted using a different name. Second, you would have turned down your hate. Third, you wouldn't bring her or your wife up. Instead, you set her out there like bait and egg people on. Not the signs of a loving step-dad."
The point Maxwell seemed to be making about Craig's step-son:
"If you truly loved [your step-son], for him you would be opening your eyes to everything about his military engagement including the fraudulent justifications for the war, so that he wouldn't be screwed over like true "Vietnam Era Veterans" were."
Craig does not address these issues. Lesson #5 from the Karl Rove Lessons of Online Debate suggests:
"Rather than addressing your opponent's points head-on, insult their intelligence."
Craig's addressing of Maxwell's points was:
- "What a wimp."
- "Max shows his lunacy..."
- "[W]hat else would you expect from a nut job like Max..."
- "Max you truly are an unbalanced worthless human being."
- "He is just another poser , afraid of his own shadow."
- "You really are a piece of crap."
- "you are beneath contempt."
- "Liberal idiots like you"
In Craig's 2nd response, he elaborates against Maxwell and me with:
- "You are an obsessed putz."
- "you are an idiot"
- "you are wetting your pants right now"
- "you are so furious"
- "Max is obviously; a weak person like [Cindy Sheehan] is"
- "you are such a weak minded moron that you have no thought process of your own"
- "another Liberal simple minded dweeb"
- "another Liberal jerk"
- "a stretch for that little brain of yours"
Nowhere does Craig address the real issues, which are his own irresponsible and unjustifiable actions that have been proven by Craig's own admission to endanger his family.
==========
Craig wrote:
"If my Step Son died I would be devastated and would want us to fight even harder and kill every terrorists out there. That would honor my Step Sons memory. ... Now Max and you want me to denigrate his memory by abandoning the mission he felt strongly enough about to join the military for."
Going by that illogical reasoning, Craig would have had a chance to really become a Vietnam Veteran. We all know, however, that had that conflict not conveniently ended two months before Craig's enlistment, Craig would have chickened out and done a Cheney by "having other priorities." Moreover, if Craig is so mission bound, why did he only serve three years?
It boggles the mind how killing anything could honor the memory of anyone. As for them being terrorists, that is a very nebulous definition.
Maxwell called you:
"A domestic enemy to our Constitution. A home-grown terrorist."
Does that mean you should die in memory of those killed in Afghanistan and Iraq?
==========
Craig wrote:
"You side with a guy that is a conspiracy loon."
Maxwell wrote:
"Top of the list is to squash any citizens' groups discussing 9/11 with open minds; slam them down as loonies as quickly as they pop up. Next on the list is to stamp down consideration of the fraudulent reasons for the Iraq war and other "unpatriotic" musings. Your paid-per-posting status explains why no one can ever convince you of anything that wasn't blessed by the Bush Administration."
Let us give credit where credit is due. Maxwell does write almost exclusively about 9/11, but the vast majority of his postings do so in a reasonable manner. Where he deviates from this, Craig has egged him on.
Anyone reading their 9/11 discussions and assessing the weight of arguments of both from what has been written here will have to side with Maxwell. Craig has not made a case.
You don't have to back too far back in this thread to see where Maxwell patiently brought up valid points for discussion and a reference. Evidently, he mailed Craig this reference and wanted Craig to talk to it. Craig has not. Maxwell mentioned several times about a show on local cable television airing really early in the morning on the weekend (which I haven't recorded yet, but plan to.) Obviously, Craig can't watch it from California, but maybe Maxwell made other arrangements for Craig. Craig has never disputed not being able to read or view what Maxwell was basing his case on.
Craig's case against 9/11 conspiracies has consistently been to simply to call Maxwell a "conspiracy loon," which is not a reason, not a basis, and not a discussion. It is an argument only in the sense that they are fighting words.
Craig's contempt for Maxwell goes back before Maxwell snapped an called Craig twice:
"A liar. Dishonest to the core. An insincere whore. A deceitful government troll. A two-faced instigator. A mendacious troublemaker. A domestic enemy to our Constitution. A home-grown terrorist. An unapologetic (Mc)Bush war-monger."
But hey! Just by looking at what Maxwell wrote and Craig's spinning and rewording of the same, Maxwell's charges against Craig are upheld in at least the cases of Craig being a two-faced instigator, a mendacious troublemaker, and an unapologetic (Mc)Bush war-monger.
==========
Craig wrote:
"You are spending way to much time attacking a person who could care less about you."
Craigy-baby, you spent far too much time two-finger typing your response to me for you to be a person who could care less about me.
{Posting from the alias above.}
Craig Scott Hawley is not smart enough to see that in this day and age of electronic transactions and identity theft, the more information you expose about yourself (and your family) in public forums on the internet, the more at risk you (and your family) are to people with lesser motives who don't even have to came out of lurker mode to do it.
The danger, if one exists, doesn't come from those of us you see (or can have a law enforcement official look up), but from those who see you.
Don't answer these questions. Do you use your wife's name or any of your step-children's names (all divulged by you online) as passwords? Given that your step-children are rather transient, what permanent address do they use and does it reflect my username?
[QUOTE id="9a71fb12-030d-48ce-b121-b7a631604b60"]
I see you say I put my family at risk for simply being honest. How So? The only way anyone is at risk is if some else threatens to harm them. ARE YOU THREATENING TO HARM ME OR MY FAMILY.
One could make that argument based on your comment. Also it is telling that a Liberal like you and Max are the ones constantly bringing up violence. WHY IS THAT?
No one except you is even suggesting violence. It seems you are obsessed with it. I think it is because you are such a milk toast in real life you project your need to dominate another in a violent manner. Sad really.
I have never suggested or called for any violence against any one.
...
So you go right ahead and prove to all that it is the left that is intolerant and full of hate and violence.
When you keep bringing up violence as the response to discourse you lose all credibility with any one that is a human being.
[/QUOTE]
I encourage the readers to do a Ctrl-F and type in the words "violence" and "threat" on both this page and the previous ones of this thread.
The only postings that mention threats and violence are either directly from Craig or quotations taken from Craig.
And as we have already demonstrated, Craig likes to read into other people's statements a lot more than was there. Craig spins them to his paranoid delusional advantage.
Craigy-baby, the pot-smoking makes you damn paranoid.
Now if anyone on this thread wrote a threat that could only be construed as violent, it is Craig's invitation to California.
Craig wrote:
"Stop by and I will put you on the phone with my Step Daughter. ... So the GAUNTLET has been thrown down Max. You either come here or shut the hell up about what you don't know. ... [My wife] is livid. ... [I]f you show up at our front door and identify your self , [my wife] will take your head off. ... [I]f you ever watched animal planet you'll know what happens when a mother has her son threatened. ... So unless you are willing to come here an confront my veracity personally , then you are just a liar extraordinaire."
This above is in addition to Craig's own words on the previous page:
"Yea I am a stalker and a pedophile. ... Craig Hawley likes little boys."
This is something that "Craig Hawley of Reseda, CA" wrote before that appears to still be relevant:
"If you are not going to approach us students as your intellectual equals and if you are constantly going to talk down to us, why should we consider a conversation with you? You have all the answers, while we seemingly have none. As such, we can't teach you anything, because your mind won't let you listen. Talk about a waste for fricken time."
Is all of this posting under your name not a lesson?
{Posting from the alias above.}
That was a great posting, Nemesis! I loved it.
To all readers of this thread and forum, I apologize for my behavior in trying to teach Craig Hawley a lesson about the dangers of divulging too much personal information on internet forums.
I have to admit, this whole episode does also call into question the lack of editorial control of this Collegian forum and login (in)security.
Regrettably, many of my postings would have been ripe for being flagged possibly to the point beyond my last warning which would deny me the ability to login and post. On the plus side of such a self-sacrifice, Craig Hawley would have been expelled with me for the same reasons. (I guess I also apologize for failing.)
FTR, I admit to being "Craig Hawley takes it from behind" and "Craig Hawley of Reseda, CA" with telephone numbers.
Other people are "Craig Hawley sucks" and its other variations.
I did it because I just could not stand to watch viewpoints -- even those MSM unfairly labels "9/11 conspiracy" and "loony" -- get steamrolled by Hawley with his underhanded tactics now seemingly well documented and more than adequately proven by Hawley himself.
Good luck on finals.
{Posting from the alias above to a different forum.}
As one of the instigators, I whole-heartedly agree.
I also apologize to you, an innocent reader, for my behavior in trying to teach Craig Hawley a lesson about the dangers of divulging too much personal information on internet forums.
If Craig Hawley would post his e-mail address or the URL to his facebook's page (where presumably a contact Hawley link exists), I'm sure that an off-list debate could be arranged.
{Posting from the alias above.}
Free speech isn't free, as those military minded people will forever remind you. Free speech must be defended.
But does free speech ever reach a boundary? A wise German once said, "your freedoms end at the tip of my nose." Because ideas, beliefs, and opinions can be shared, they exist beyond the tips of our nose. As such, they are fair game to be talked about, defended and even torn apart.
When the free speech takes a fist and smashes the tip of our noses, when it takes on the person and not the ideas, and when it uses creative adjectives and cutesy nouns -- whether or not profane -- to belittle without basis and insult an individual personally, then maybe free speech has suffered a debilitating blow.
Of course, those who threw the punch will parrot what little they know about the First Amendment, but the fact remains that both the person with the bloody nose and all who have witnessed it will have a chill put on their free speech. Why venture an opinion if a bully is going to ignore the ideas and attack me?
The Rocky Mountain Collegian online forums has reached a point in its evolution where the editorial board can no longer just let anything go. It should engage some of CSU's fine software engineering students to put some security and accountability into the forums, like just about every forum on the internet provides.
The reason for this is visible on just about every forum here.
An AARP candidate from Reseda, California by the name of "Craig Hawley" has been a regular hate instigator on this site. The issue isn't his right-wing, party-line, talking-point views. The issue is that his primary defense of his positions is to belittle other people's views and insult the contributor personally. His goal isn't to have a rational debate discussing the merits of ideas point-by-point; his goal is to get into an online fight.
By his own admission, he's been kicked out of the online forums of the Coloradoan, the Denver Post, and others. He regular monitors and posts to 10 other online forums. He knows he is supposed to behave, but likes to camp his vitriol here, because nobody is policing him.
He talks down to us. We can't teach him anything, not even the simple lesson that several participants recently tried to hammer home in a humorous and devious way about how it is prudent to protect your personal information (like your true name, address, family members) from being exposed in public internet forums.
Until the Rocky Mountain Collegian steps up with a revised policy, let us use this forum thread to express our "appreciation" for Craig Hawley's rants and what he inspires.
It is okay to use a user name like "Hawley rules" or "Hawley sucks" or other creative, but please be consistent and use the same user name for all subsequent postings you make on this thread. We'd like to get an idea of Hawley's true fan (or anti-fan) base.
Whether the numbers show that Hawley has lots of fans or whether the numbers show CSU wants Hawley to take a hike elsewhere in the ether, maybe we can at least convince him of the benefit of establishing his own blog where all of his musings can be consolidated.
{Posting from the alias above.}
(I am not "Craig Hawley is a Tard." True to my word, I'm only posting under "Craig Hawley needs a blog" in this forum.)
We all observed you make a very lecherous pass at a poster with a female name using your "Freudian" comments and saying that you're willing to share your medical marijuana . (If the tone of that wasn't reason enough for everyone to use a "USERNAME" instead of a real name, I don't know what is.)
Should you somehow entice this female who is old enough to be your daughter to venture to California and to share some of your "medication", would you use a condom if all the other signals (including those from you bi-curious wife) went in your favor even though your wife had you neutered like a dog so that you can't create puppies with her or any other bitch?
In this day and age, the answer is "yes."
Craigy-baby, using your real name in an online forum is like having unprotected sex not just with the co-ed you enticed to California and got high but with everyone who's ever slept at the motel you used to do the deed.
Posting under a "USERNAME" is a rudimentary protection to prevent some layman forms of data mining and analysis that could lead to online mischief against those revealing too much, if not to outright identity theft.
Your insistence that everyone post using their real name is out of step with prudent advice given by all law enforcement officials regarding how to conduct yourself online, regardless of the content being posted.
Get off of your high horse about what it means to post under a "USERNAME".
FTR, when you post from 1200 miles away, it is almost the equivalent to posting under an alias. You get to bully and act online just as foolish as if you were using a "USERNAME", because it isn't as if someone is going to run into you on campus or around town and set you straight about the insults you've thrown.
Craig wrote:
"Ah yes an because of your cowardice and anonymity behind you nick , we have only your word , that you are not the same guy with the other Craig Hawley nicks."
We have only your word that you, Craig Hawley, are who you say you are and that your motives for posting here are what you say they are.
Craig wrote:
"So far the vast majority is you and if I believed the nicks ... there are still only a few of you posting against me."
That is more than have stepped up in your favor.
Craig wrote:
"I have ten times your posts in friends at CSU who write me directly at my E-Mail address."
To use your words, "we have only your word." In that I've never seen your email address posted, you've never provided it as part of your profile, and you've never used it in your signatures, your statement is questionable. I don't recall seeing it on your MySpace page either, and that is another link I've only seen you post once.
But hey, prove me a liar. Post your personal email address here again. But don't blame me when such unsafe sex... err, posting practices fills your little joy box with itchy, crawly spam making it useless.
Craig wrote:
"You are entitled to your opinion and that is the extent of your entitlements young man. You have no right to speak for CSU or others."
Grandpa, how about you follow your own advice. You have no right to speak down to us. You aren't a CSU student, so what right do you have to flood our forums with your blog?
Craig wrote:
"And one other big flaw in your censoring free speech conspiracy with the Journalism department. The collegian states it has no such censorship. So the first thing I would do is follow David J McSwane's lead and get a lawyer friend of mine to file a lawsuit for them violating my civil rights."
What the Collegian does (or does not do) is different that what they have the right to do.
Have you never noticed the checkbox that you are required to click in order to post that states in part:
"I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server."
If the Collegian were to take action against you (for your bullying tone and fighting words), it would NOT be violating any of your civil rights. The Collegian is a commercial enterprise. They own this space. This is not a public forum like a soapbox on a street corner; they have no obligation to publish you.
{Posting from the alias above. Some other posters on the forum used some slurs of Craig Hawley's name in their alias.}
I'm not any of the other instantiations of "Craig Hawley".
Are you a friend or foe of Craig Hawley?
Tell him there whether or not he should have his own blog elsewhere.
(Voting for this resolution doesn't mean you'll read it.)
{Posting from the alias above.}
The score card isn't on your lame facebooks pages. It is here in this forum's thread about underwear & panties, and people like you who admit in your first posting to deviant sexual behavior by breaking and entering female dormitory rooms for them.
If your 8 or 12 facebook friends be true friends, let them offer some words of encouragement for you here. They can use whatever name or nick they desire so as to avoid their true identities being revealed.
You flatter yourself into thinking that your detractor is only one person. Entertain for a moment the realistic paranoid possibility, and what I know for a fact, that we are at least several people. It's fun to see how our tag-team postings put you up against the ropes to unleash your crazy delusional psychosis within. You are beyond a doubt in need of your own blog space, and a qualified mental health professional.
{Posting from the alias above.}
How many message boards do you troll? And after all that time and from all over the country, your facebook account can only muster 25 registered friends?! ROTFLMAO!!!
Yes, do tell, oh wise and ancient one, who looks more of the fool than whom? Who is more pathetic than whom?
In case you haven't noticed... oh right... you don't live here. CSU finals are over, graduation has transpired for some, and many have the task of relocating to their summer residences with the parental units. Those distractions alone account for such little reverberation here online, for or against you (but more against you than for). This thread is not done.
Rage on, oh crazy old man. Rage on.
If you were an Indian in Colorado 300 and more years ago, your offspring would be whispering words of "the long slow death" (Alzheimers) about you and hoping secretly that on the soonest cold winter night, you take a walk, ne'er to return. But this isn't 300 years ago, and your kids have found a way to avoid and pacify their crazy nut of a Dad: plug him into the internet. Rage on, crazy old man. Rage on.
P.S. How about posting the URL to your blog? Chicken?
{Posting from the alias above.}
Craigy-baby,
There you go again egging people into a fight. Get yourself a blog.
Oh yes. I checked out both of your pathetic MySpace and Facebook pages. They aren't blogs, at least not how you are using them. What you post here might be considered a blog, but it belongs there. It also might be considered ABUSIVE and ripe to be flagged for deletion from this forum.
It has been brought up over and over about what a username is and how it protects you. Pick the right username, and it can represent you just fine. It would be the real you and as real as it needs to be.
Your argument for using your real name is a very poor one, which we prove over and over again. Your Facebook or MySpace page indicates you've got a birthday coming up in early June. Won't that information be useful along with your address and other particulars to tap into some of your $60k - $75k annual earnings. (Hey, isn't that kind of low for California? Oh wait. I see. You went all of one year to college some 28 years ago and didn't even graduate. Explains why you're a mall rent-a-cop today.)
Get a life.
P.S. From what I've seen of both your Facebook and MySpace pages, I wouldn't want to have an account on either. It is just another marketing trick to get you to reveal all sorts of personal details about yourself (whether or not you expose them to others, they are in a database) so that spam and junk mail can be directed at you with a sharper focus. Getting lots of AARP and Viagra junk mail and spam, are we Craigy-baby? Blame it on your unsafe and unwise internet usage.
{Posting from the alias above.}
Craigy-baby,
Can never admit that you are wrong, now can you? You have, however, been proven a liar in the past, Mr. Wanna-be-Vietnam-Veteran, Mr. Wanna-be-college-graduate, Mr. Wanna-be-smart. (Similar to what the other "Craig Hawley..." pointed out, learn the difference between "your" and "you're".)
BTW, if your links are incomplete, they don't work. Haven't proven me a liar about your blog yet. As far as I'm concerned, they don't exist. Moreover, if I have to register an account with Facebooks or MySpace just to read your fictional blogs, then it really isn't a blog, is it? A real blog lets anyone in.
Let's parse some illogic out of your posting. You deal only in cash and only have $20 in your checking account. Now aren't you the poster child for irresponsible financial management and a fine example you set for us impressionable CSU student?
Got it under your mattress, eh? Such a wonderful neon sign "STEAL FROM ME" you got there that will get switched on the next time you boast online of going to Hawaii or your time-share in Las Vegas with your wife Lynne.
No wait. You've paid someone who advertises on the side of buses to protect your identity. What for? $20? Either you are lying about the $20, lying about the service, or lying about the true extent of your assets? Regardless, you've proven yourself a liar again.
FTR, I'm not worried about the campus police, the Fort Collins police, or the department of homeland security knocking at my door. Why? Because their hackers will quickly deduce that your assumption about the number of flamers you have is wrong. They will also quickly be able to correlate and tally all of my "Craig Hawley needs a blog" postings and see that, gee, not only am I unique with respect to the others and true to my word about only using one username, not only were no threats made to you by me, but also beneficial advice about being safe on the internet was imparted to you that has yet to seep through your thick skull into your walnut sized brain.
Now if you insist on ignoring it, if you insist on exposing your real name and personal details every where, fine. Just remember: #1, you were warned (and the true danger does not come from those who warn you about it.) #2, your taunts about using real names as opposed to usernames is completely off base and wrong. If indeed you've contacted the authorities like some scared little chicken, I'm sure they've already reamed you a new one for your stupid and unsafe internet practices. How did it feel?
You are free to use whatever username you prefer "Craig Hawley", but kindly remove from your babble all taunts for others to use their real name for the weak reason it supposedly makes you honest and responsible for your views. There is no correlation between the two. I am honest and responsible for my opinions under a username. And as you prove daily, you can be a liar even when posting under your real name.
Yes, by all means, post to all of the CSU students on facebooks. If they are really your "friends", if they really agree with you, bring 'em on. Send them here to their college newspaper's online forum. Let them voice their support.
If they read this thread, they'll see that the only one calling them "ignorant idiots" was you.
Here's my analogy about facebooks and myspace. Talk to anyone who smokes regularly and is addicted, and they will tell you it is a nasty habit that they wouldn't recommend to anyone. All of them will tell you even as they light up a new cigarette from the burning butt of the last, don't ever start smoking.
As far as these online services go, I guarantee you that within five years, nearly everyone with an active account there will regret it in one form or another. They'll regret the closed nature of those services. They'll regret that these very services get blocked by many corporate networks, making them how useful in the next stage of life (gainful employment)? They'll regret some things that they posted and got archived there (and in Google). They'll regret what potential employers might read. They'll regret what web-crawlers will parse out them. They'll regret most of all the targeted online marketing.
Even as they struggle to quit, struggle to divest themselves from things they wrote in their irresponsible youth, and struggle to have a new responsible online life with a more guarded presence, this will be like the "permanent record" that does indeed follow them everywhere. They will hate it, hate it, HATE IT! And they'll be just like smokers or former smokers telling the youth not to make the same (online) mistakes they did and that you, "Craig Hawley", are the poster child for doing.
Be careful about what you write online, Craigy-baby. Because if there is anyone on this campus forum more in need of a knock on the door by homeland security for hate speech, it is you... a trolling, out-of-state, pot-smoking, panty-raiding, 50 year-old trying to make himself online into something he's not.
{Posting from the alias above.}
Craig wrote:
[QUOTE id="26a943c3-8080-49b9-82dc-295a29aae10d"]
I see my pathetic friend from the Undies thread is sticking his head up here in an attempt to stop masturbating long enough to make a comment.
...
Anyone that wants to see what a violent and morally bankrupt person you are just go to the Undie thread and see. This is the person that said they would stab me in the head. And why. I use LOL!
That is all it took. This person is mentally unstable.
[/QUOTE]
Just setting the record straight.
Little 'ole me has been posting under the handle of "Craig Hawley needs a blog" in the underwear thread and elsewhere for quite some time now. That is the only handle I've been using, because I said that I would. I don't need to muddy the waters.
The undie thread is here.
Highlight the line and you can snag the URL to put in your browser. Please go there and vote "yeah or nay" to the idea of Craig putting his hate speech into his own blog instead of swamping us here.
And, Craigy-baby, sorry to disappoint, but you really should approach each "Craig Hawley..." flamer as unique individuals and address them at their words accordingly. (We have unique writing styles and tones.) Don't group us together, even though we are united in flaming your ignorance.
Yep, to that end, the "Craig Hawley..." who made statements about your head stabbing was not me, "Craig Hawley needs a blog." For that matter, when I read it, it wasn't as threatening as you have subsequently and repeatedly hyped it up to be. You're just paranoid from smoking too much pot.
On the other hand, we do know a LOT about you. Your paranoia that someone might make sport of tweaking with you where you live or where you do your banking might have some merit. But because this wealth of information is available to the WORLD WIDE WEB today (and in the digital archives for years to come), the risk to you will be ongoing for years and could come from ANYWHERE or ANYONE. You can rule me out as a suspect, though. I'm just a well-meaning messenger and will for sure have an alibi.
FTR, I do agree with the statement that "Craig Hawley is a bigot" and other flames.
Finally, we have plenty of evidence with regards to who is mentally unstable. Which is why we've been encouraging him -- subtly and not-so-subtly -- to cash in on his craziness with his own blog... ELSEWHERE, not here.
{Posting from the alias above.}
Hey everyone!!!
It isn't worth reading or bookmarking, but it does exist. Now our challenge is for him to write his overwhelming words of wit there, instead of here. It would be totally awesome if all of his subsequent postings here were limited to:
"I, the wonderful Craig Hawley, have some thoughts on this subject or in response to the last posting. They can be found at this URL:
http://politicallyincorrect69.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html"
Facebooks and MySpace (and others) are blocked even at lunch time from my summer employer's computers. My bad for not being able to get to them. Craigy-baby's bad for burying the links to them in a membership service that is on a blocked service.
Repeated from another posting of mine:
___________
Craigy-baby, sorry to disappoint, but you really should approach each "Craig Hawley..." flamer as unique individuals and address them at their words accordingly. (We have unique writing styles and tones.) Don't group us together, even though we are united in flaming your ignorance.
Yep, to that end, the "Craig Hawley..." who made statements about your head stabbing was not me, "Craig Hawley needs a blog." For that matter, when I read it, it wasn't as threatening as you have subsequently and repeatedly hyped it up to be. You're just paranoid from smoking too much pot.
On the other hand, we do know a LOT about you. Your paranoia that someone might make sport of tweaking with you where you live or where you do your banking might have some merit. But because this wealth of information is available to the WORLD WIDE WEB today (and in the digital archives for years to come), the risk to you will be ongoing for years and could come from ANYWHERE or ANYONE. You can rule me out as a suspect, though. I'm just a well-meaning messenger and will for sure have an alibi.
___________
{Posting from the alias above.}
Craig Wrote:
[QUOTE id="102bc4bb-810d-4e7e-8e55-f7c5888867ad"]
Yada Yada Yada , Same old stuff I am not going anywhere and you can't make me. Na na.
There that is about your level.
[/QUOTE]
Your true level shines for all to see with that winning posting.
So? Where are any of those 25 "friends" from CSU who, out of morbid curiousity, friended you on myspace or where ever? How come they haven't come here to support you? Didn't you email them and tell them to rush to your defense here? Didn't you give them a link?
Even Ms. Registered Independent after recovering has only shown her right-wing patter once, and she too falsely believed at that early point there is only one poster against you. She, like you, haven't given this thread a thorough reading and analysis to know how many different people have posted their dislike of you. (I've kept my word and haven't muddied the waters. Others have kept theirs. It ain't rocket science.)
So, it was finals and now the end of the semester. So, you have had ample opportunity to muster your forces. I think that the small numbers against you speaks volumes, consider that you have only your delusions to speak for you.
As for you not going anywhere, we'll see about that. The checkbox says that that IP addresses can be permanently banned from this server. You've already given the Collegian reasons to ban your IP address. All they have to do is find the fortitude to do so. (And they will.) Keep on ranting, old man, and justify it even more.
{Posting from the alias above.}
The crime they'll ban your ID for isn't hijacking the thread, which was a throwaway end-of-the-semester fluff article about panties anyway.
The crime is being abusive, bullying, fighting, intolerant, and incoherent and flooding this forum with ... lots & lots of nothing worth reading or remembering. Need I bring up your constant baiting? How about your blatant lying and purposely spinning, twisting, and re-writing (poorly) the words of others to conform to your narrow-minded expectations?
I dare you to do a Ctrl-F with the fragment "stab". See where it appears and in what context first, and then in every other instance that you brought it up, that you hyped it, that you twisted it, and that you continually attributed to me (formerly "Craig Hawley needs a blog"), not its true author.
Your dishonesty and delusions are your strongest features.
Briefly looking at some archival postings, I see that you have been kicked out of a number of online forums for the very crimes listed above -- and you brag about it, too. When the editors survey the wasteland you have made of this space, they will eventually take action, too, for you sully their reputation.{Posting from the alias above.}
Maybe someone should instruct you, Reg Indy, about First Amendment freedom of speech, because you seem to be right-wing confused.
Free speech isn't free, as those military minded people will forever remind you. Free speech must be defended.
But does free speech ever reach a boundary? A wise German once said, "your freedoms end at the tip of my nose." Because ideas, beliefs, and opinions can be shared, they exist beyond the tips of our nose. As such, they are fair game to be talked about, defended and even torn apart.
When the free speech takes a fist and smashes the tip of our noses, when it takes on the person and not the ideas, and when it uses creative adjectives and cutesy nouns -- whether or not profane -- to belittle without basis and insult an individual personally, then maybe free speech has suffered a debilitating blow.
Of course, those who threw the punch will parrot what little they know about the First Amendment, but the fact remains that both the person with the bloody nose and all who have witnessed it will have a chill put on their free speech. Why venture an opinion if a bully is going to ignore the ideas and attack me?
Registered Independent wrote:
[QUOTE id="d3205fab-6562-47db-8a7b-fab7eb15adf9"]
Would someone from the Collegian like to step in here and have a try at explaining the concept of First Amendment freedom of speech to this guy?
His constant calls for censorship indicate that he is at a pretty remedial level, so it might take a while.
And he undoubtedly just hates "right-wing patter" about Constitutional rights, so there's a psychological disinclination as well.
Some poor Government Professor has really got his work cut out for him, with this character . . . . . . . .
[/QUOTE]
The issue, Reg Indy, is not Craig-baby's misguided views on a whole number of things or even his outright lies.
The issue is being abusive, bullying, fighting, intolerant, and incoherent and flooding this forum with ... lots & lots of nothing worth reading or remembering. He constantly baits for on-line fights, as if this forum was his Viagra manhood pill. He can get away with lying about himself; what do we care? He shouldn't be revealing so much personal information, but WTF? But his argumentative style is to purposely spin, twist, and re-write (poorly) the words of others to conform to narrow-minded expectations and misrepresented positions?
Back to the First Amendment and the whole purpose of this thread. Craigy-baby can have mondo freedom of speech, say whatever he like, write reems of banality and words of marginal wit (LOL), and flood his blog space with as much information as he sees fit, if we were to use his blog.
And it wouldn't have to flood and drown the forums here.
{Posting from the alias above.}
Craigy-baby,
Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat.
Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat.
Wet hair. Apply shampoo. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Make sure that you provide the URL to this forum.
Make sure that your own conduct is above reproach such that the knock from Homeland Security doesn't come to your door first.
Expect that after they read said forum, they will recognize your pattern of:
Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat.
Expect them to LTAO at Craigy-baby, not just the boy who cried wolf, but the crazy lunatic from California with no personal life so he spends it online in a college forum egging the students into online fights and not recognizing when he's lost (and a lost cause.) The man with a skull so thick, safe intercourse & exchanges on the internet and all advice to those ends elude him.
__________
As for you, Reg Indy, you do your fair share of:
Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat.
The analogy of the bloody nose was obviously metaphoric in this online context to help illustrate the extents of civilized free speech. Ideas are fair game. Bullying someone, even with just words, isn't.
It is great that you are a lawyer.
How is it that you completely missed or didn't read the recorded record of this forum, which clearly documents who wrote what and said what? Why do you repeat falsehoods from Craigy-baby? Hearsay isn't admissible in court, is it?
How is that you completely missed these three points related to free speech?
#1 Craigy-baby gets more than ample free speech through his blog, were he to choose to use it. No censorship. No deletion. It might tone down his offensive posts and reduce their volume here.
#2 This www.collegian.com forum is not a street corner. It is the equivalent of a corporate web server, meaning a private entity with the ability to set rules and expectations for content it publishes and standards that it upholds. You're quick to call it censorship, yet as you well know from the Colloradoan, such editorial actions are common on the internet to promote CIVIL free speech.
#3 Where were you when the Bush Administration began the practice of establishing "free speech zones"? Which side are you on open/equal-access internet with respect to ISPs offering varying levels of internet service and speed based on the ability to pay, meaning the internet response time from the Collegian could become deathly slow compared to Gannett's Coloradoan?
{Posting from the alias above.}
Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat.
Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat.
Reg Indy wrote:
[QUOTE id="095d7e12-276a-4522-862f-37b94a1f6128"]
You are therefore making a complete and utter fool of yourself by calling for the censorship of unpopular or offensive speech, in this particular venue.
[/QUOTE]
There you go again trying to put the "censorship" word in my mouth.
Craigy-baby is free to have his blog, uncensored where he posts his unpopular and offensive speech. (Hell, if he's not jousting with someone and throwing insults, it could be a huge improvement to both his writing quality and the force of the argument he wants to make.)
He can even go into this forum and post links to his unpopular and offensive speech hosted on his blog and lead-in/lead-out tags about how it relates to the discussion.
Hell, he can even post his unpopular and offensive speech here, hopefully IN MODERATION. (Moderation is something that Craigy-baby has yet to learn, as you'll see in nearly all threads of the Collegian.)
What he can't do is post hate speech, which he regularly borders on with his baiting insults. He spends more typed letters trying to come up with something marginally witty with which to insult and belittle his discussion partner than he types on the topics of discussion. It does nothing to bring about civil discourse.
BTW, I support the "Taser This, F*** Bush" editorial from the Collegian editorial board on all levels. That is very different than a good number of Craigy-baby's entries here. At least the editorial board had a meaningful point. Most passages of Craigy-baby's postings that would be considered abusive IN ANY OTHER INTERNET ONLINE FORUM were written to start an irrational fight meant to drag the discussion away from meaningful things. It gives Craigy-baby his jollies.
And as we see from the last two paragraphs of your posting, you too get your jollies by taunting people and you have no appreciation for poetry, particularly when its deeper spiritual message might apply to you.
{Posting from the alias above.}
Reg Indy,
Have you won very many cases in court? I have my doubts.
I told you to review the recorded record of this forum. It clearly documents who wrote what and said what.
Why do you repeat falsehoods?
Reg Indy wrote:
[QUOTE id="c1971611-823e-4385-8d58-ce1dde3b83ff"]
Folks, don't you just love the words "poetry" and "deeper spiritual message" coming out of the mouth of the guy who was threatening to stab someone in the head a couple of days ago?
[/QUOTE]
"Craig Hawley needs a blog" and my current incarnation as "Craig Hawley needs to use his blog" (assumed at Craigy-baby's personal request) did not write that threatening statement. Hello-oooo! It is staring you in the face.
For all anybody in this forum knows, it could have been written by you or Craig Hawley himself or anybody else. If you expect me to take you and Craig Hawley at your words that you didn't write it, you'll have to take me at mine when I stated up front and remained true to my word that I'd only be posting and only have posted under "Craig... blog".
FTR, there is a big difference between warning someone about how much of an idiot they are being on the internet in revealing way too many personal details about themselves and the consequences it can have on their finances and identity AND making a threat to take such actions. You're a lawyer. Go parse my words; no such threat was made. It was Craig Hawley's chorus that made such insinuations: "Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat."
Hell, Reg Indy, maybe as a right-wing lawyer who doesn't post under her real name or provide personal details, you can talk some sense into Craigy-baby that maybe, just maybe, he should wear more of a condome on his blabber-mouth in his internet intercourses and that maybe, just maybe, "Craig Hawley needs a blog" had a valid point in this matter.
Wasn't there just yesterday an article in the Coloradoan about internet phishing?
Also FTR, assuming a username like "Craig Hawley ... blog" does not make a person a liar. It just makes their postings annoying to the true Craig Hawley.
Craig Hawley, on the other hand, has been proven a liar. He claimed or gave the unambiguous impression that he was Vietnam Veteran; he is not. He claimed or gave the unambiguous impression that he has multiple college degrees; according to his own personal pages elsewhere, he does not.
So, if you're going to back off going off half-cocked as a lawyer, you should stop relying on Craig Hawley's hearsay and recognize that his word is much less credible than mine based on the record given here. He may have made that threat to himself, for all we know. What I know for a fact is what I didn't do, which brings us back to Craig Hawley's chorus (that you sing) in trying to pin it on me: "Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat."
[Maybe you and Craigy-baby want to continue and attribute threats to me erroneously, because you don't want to admit that this forum has only shown Reg Indy as a fan, but AT LEAST TWO (but I think several more) who aren't. Ergo, Craigy-baby "loses."]
{Posting from the alias above.}
Where are your apologies to me for spreading falsehoods and attributing words to me I never wrote?
[QUOTE id="c1971611-823e-4385-8d58-ce1dde3b83ff"]
Folks, don't you just love the words "poetry" and "deeper spiritual message" coming out of the mouth of the guy who was threatening to stab someone in the head a couple of days ago?
[/QUOTE]
Proving yet again what a poor lawyer you are, Reg Indy, you have yet to go to the source of that "supposed" threat.
If you look at it in context, you'll see how credible it really isn't for being taken seriously.
It was written by "you idiot" and posted 5/15/08 @ 7:27 PM MST.
---------
that's not a link, dipsh*t, that's just a web address. they say they have racks in all those locations, but THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY THERE. so it's a non-published publication. sweet.
the next time you put an LOL on this board i'm going to stab you in the head, moron.
---------
Not my username. Not my style of writing. Not me.
And in my opinion, not a violent threat, either. Ever hear of hyperbole? Another indication as to how low its level of seriousness is the fact that "you idiot" makes three allusions to the lack of Craigy-baby's intelligence, whereby he surely could surmise that Craigy-baby's skull is very thick and his walnut size brain very small -- both not very ideal for piercing and hitting a lethal target.
For Craigy-baby to leave out the "LOL" portion over and over again and to continually attempt to pin it on me rather than the rightful author just proves that the chorus he sings is indeed:
"Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat."
{Posting from the alias above. To the changeling I later refer to as Sgt. Asshat.}
Whose sockpuppet are you?
[QUOTE id="cc814d37-3800-44fa-96da-72dd940020ef"]
What Craig has there is commonly called a *Sockpuppet* (see hyperlink above).
They are sad, lonely, pathetic little trolls.
Best to follow the maxim: "DO NOT FEED THE TROLL"
[/QUOTE]
Why don't you give Craig Hawley the same advice about trolling? You obviously haven't been reading any of the other threads here.
Still, maybe I have been acting a bit of the troll.
But... I have only been doing it under two usernames, the second one at Craig's request.
The purpose of this little exercise was for CSU to voice their like or dislike of said troll. I stated up front in the "rules" that I'd only be posting under one handle and that others should also post only under one handle so that we can better judge the numbers.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to skew the numbers by trying to post under many other aliases. "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive." Too hard to keep up. And it digresses from my goal.
So, assuming you are not Hawley's sockpuppet, than all of two people have come out in favor of Hawley.
As for those against, we have:
Here are 6 people against. I know you want to assume that they all are one and the same. I and "for the record" have been honest about who we've posted as. I've seen Obamarama post elsewhere and differently. So, if I were to give Craig the benefit of the doubt about someone skewing the numbers with as a sockpuppet, we're still talking at least 4 people, but probably more.
Whereas your definition of me as a troll might be fitting, whereas I should probably take that comment to heart and act accordingly (less trollish), and whereas I would for sure appreciate if Craig would STOP feeding me (because it would mean less of his postings here), the conclusion is that sockpuppet does not apply.
{Posting from the alias above.}
The purpose of this little exercise was for CSU to voice their like or dislike. I stated up front in the "rules" that I'd only be posting under one handle and that others should also post only under one handle so that we can better judge the numbers.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to skew the numbers by trying to post under many other aliases. (I've used two aliases, because Craig requested the second one.) "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive." Too hard to keep up. And it digresses from my goal.
So, all of two people have come out in favor of Hawley.
As for those against, we have:
Here are 6 people against. I know you want to assume that they all are one and the same. I and "for the record" have been honest about who we've posted as. I've seen Obamarama post elsewhere and differently. So, if I were to give Craig the benefit of the doubt about someone skewing the numbers as a sockpuppet, we're still talking at least 4 people, but probably more.
Thus, Sockpuppet only applies to Craig Hawley and his 38 facebook "friends", none of whom have appeared here even under an alias, which we know this forum supports, to give him their support.
{Posting from the alias above.}
You can spin and twist. But...
The fact remains that three times as many haters popped up here as your supporters.
The fact remains that the reasons the overall numbers were so low was finals week, end of the semester, and ...
you have so polluted every thread of this forum most over whelmingly, would-be posters learn very quickly how the "Collegian Craig Hawley" blog steamrolls over one and all. You make the Collegian forums something serious people ignore, and others to come visit for a laugh like the Bizarro comic.
I'm glad you can spell "narcissistic." Now if you know what it means, apply it to yourself, like so many of the insults you fling at others. You don't see MY NAME on nearly every posting here, do you? You don't see MY NAME first and last on every thread and in the middle in amounts outnumbering all other participants, do you?
Sheeeeeee-it! Your love of your name published here will cause you to stay up past midnight composing probably two responses after mine so you can be sure to get the last word in. Watch!
{Craig Hawley posted this.}
[QUOTE id="1796b9cc-c352-4f01-90e2-f2dfea23b3ce"]
How do I know he was joking. I must have missed the LMAO or LOL or ROTFLLMAO after that stabbing comment. Please show the post where I said I would stab anyone or your just a liar.
If you read my answer to your ridiculous assertion I stole underwear , it was a campus tradition and the girls gave us their underwear or stood their laughing.
No one broke into a room and took underwear that was not wanted to be taken. So again either you can't read or your a liar.
As far as Federal law and Marijuana is concerned I believe in states rights on this issue.
I use it as a medicine and for a good reason. My doctor prescribes it for me. I do not buy it on the street and get in in legal stores and have my name their for all to see.
So the first to points are just lies and your last one I am proud of. I have helped three cancer patients survive by supplying them with medical marijuana , and yes they are legal and have cards , and if you expect me to feel guilty about helping save lives then it is you who are morally bankrupt.
So your post consists of distortions , lies and anti cancer patient sentiments. Your a wonderful human being that can't read , tells lies , and has no compassion.
No wonder your anonymous. LMAO!
[/QUOTE]
{Registered Independent wrote:}
[QUOTE id="dfa86c8e-5f20-4cb0-a3e7-b422ebee12c3"]
Not only that Mr. Hawley, but your opponent's obtuse remarks regarding what he imagines lawyers actually do, clearly indicate that he hasn't got even the vaguest idea of how our legal system works.
It is not the attorney's job to ascertain the facts and adjudicate them. That is the job of the "trier of fact", which generally means the jury but sometimes means the judge.
The attorney never, ever, usurps nor impinges upon the jury's role.
It is also not the attorney's job to attempt to be "objective".
The attorney's job is to zealously represent his or her own client's interests before the court. One side of the case only - - - get it now?
P.S. Mr. Hawley is right again that a "panty raid" is consensual goofing off by all concerned.
Breaking and entering has absolutely nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]
{Craig Hawley wrote:}
[QUOTE id="0293b518-30f1-448e-9ca5-7f121b676f42"]
Thanks you for schooling our young opponent Reg Indy.
Overview of noun twit
The noun twit has 2 senses? (no senses from tagged texts)
1. twerp, twirp, twit
(someone who is regarded as contemptibleOur young opponent and his imaginary buddies are twits by definition. They make inane points and just disregard anything they have done wrong.
These idiots brought up the fact that I was off topic and that was a reason for kicking me out of this forum.
When I pointed out that I was on topic in the very first post on this thread and then it was they that violated Collegian rules to go after me , they suddenly ignore this fact.
So in other words they started this and did so in violation of the rules.
Let me if I might be so bold school these young people on the CLEAN HANDS principle of our courts.
You do not go to court and say , your honor I am a crack cocaine dealer , and Craig stole my money. I want him arrested. LOL!
You will be quickly informed that your can't admit to a crime and then try to arrest someone else for another crime. You must have clean hands to even bring it up.
So when my unworthy twit of an opponent started this whole thing by violating Collegian rules he lost all moral authority to request anything.
I e3ven gave them another chance to follow Collegian rules by trying to return to the topic of the thread when I said I was wearing boxers.
Yet they still violate Collegian policy , while calling for me to be kicked. They ar5e unbelievably stupid and hypocrites to.
I am waiting for the retard that said I threatened to stab someone in the head. If they can't produce it , then they are liars and just add to the lies they are telling.
Now I can understand why this moron doesn';t understand that a panty raid is a consensual thing between girls and guys. In fact a girl who didn't get her panties stolen was devastated and embarrassed. LOL!
Could it be that our anonymous friend is just what I said he was. A geek hiding behind a computer screen adjusting his thick glasses with the piece of tape holding the nose piece together.
To put it in the wisdom of an old country friend of mine , HE HASN'T HAD VAGINA SINCE VAGINA HAD HIM. LOL!
[/QUOTE]
{Posting from the alias above.}
FTR, "there was no threat" is not me. I have no reason to use another alias to make his points, which are indeed a concise version of points I have already brought up.
"A strong man stands up for himself. A stronger man stands up for others."
Ben the cow in "Barnyard."
In that spirit...
Hawley wrote the following posting that turns out to be pretty funny in context:
"Let me if I might be so bold school these young people on the CLEAN HANDS principle of our courts. You do not go to court and say , your honor I am a crack cocaine dealer , and Craig stole my money. I want him arrested. LOL!"
Yet in a posting prior to the above, Craig wrote in response to "there was no threat":
"... So your post consists of distortions , lies and anti cancer patient sentiments. ... "
Can you say: "Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat."
Cancer, cancer patients, and compassion weren't the subject, neither was your being a drug dealer. If you have to go to a special legal place to acquire your stash, it means that you aren't a legal distributor of such FEDERAL contriband yourself to others.
Whose HANDS have to be CLEAN? LOL!
Federal law is federal law even if everyone here can agree that States rights in a perfect world ought to have jurisdiction particular if their laws were passed after the federal law. So "there was no threat" was indeed correct that (you) "admitted using marijuana in violation of federal law." A simple fact.
And now you admit to unlawful distribution of a controlled substance.
Homeland Security will be happy to knock on your door.
Let's not forget that Hawley does most of his business in cash. I bet those drug earnings haven't been taxed, making the IRS also interested in you.
But hey! You don't have to worry about me calling the authorities on you, because -- unless you were lying -- you have already contacted the authorities and they are researching this thread and all of its participants inside and out.
Price-less... In one sentence either we prove Hawley a liar (again) or his own doing gets himself into hot water with various federal agencies despite flimsy state-based documentation that may prove to be "get out of jail" cards, but not without hassles and possibly even shelling out cash from his numbered bank account to Reg Indy to represent him... if the DEA authorities don't offer up the additional hassle of confiscating all of his assets until the case is resolved.
Way to go!
You wrote:
"How do I know he was joking. I must have missed the LMAO or LOL or ROTFLLMAO after that stabbing comment."
How do you know he was joking? Context. FTR, there is no grammatical rule that "LMAO or LOL or ROTFLLMAO" have to appear AFTER said comment. Also FTR, you did miss the "LOL" in said comment from "you idiot," which you continue to -- all together now -- "Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat." The Hawley chorus.
With regards to the panty raid nonsense, you seem offended when your modus operadus is used against you by "there was no threat." "Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat." Is there a lesson in there that maybe you should learn, like maybe "do unto others?"
{Posting from the alias above.}
As for you Reg Indy,
The legalese you write may indeed be the truth, but I don't recalling hearing it from either Hawley or you that you are his lawyer.
You enter into the discussion on this forum without having your facts straight. You make accusations based on hearsay and outright falsehoods about simple matters that you could have verified yourself by using your mouse-button and the scrollbar wheel and reading, particularly after you were called on it and an apology was demanded (still not forthcoming.)
A good attorney regardless of which side she represents would become familiar with all of the discovery information, statements, facts, and evidence from both sides as far as her ability permits. In this manner, she is more able to counter more effectively the opposing arguments.
Your unwillingness to do such tiny "mouse-work" in this case proves that you are indeed very wise to hide behind an alias and not give personal details, because it is very bad advertisement for your law firm. I certainly won't be calling you up for legal work.
And the irony of this is that nearly every time you enter the discussion, you are not acting like an attorney; you act like a judge whose job as you so eliquently wrote is "to ascertain the facts and adjudicate them." You jump in and "rule" in Hawley's favor, despite clear proof that you haven't ascertained the facts and that you base said ruling on hearsay and falsehoods. Way to go! By those standards, the Bush Administration ought to have you on its short list of judicial appointments, because you've proven your ability to rule in favor of right-wing positions regardless of the facts to the contrary.
{Craig Hawley wrote:}
[QUOTE id="c99bff06-a02e-4a58-b143-0a6d17f728e4"]
I don't sell medical marijuana although under state laws i could , I give it to qualified patients. The only money I make is selling it to the stores and yes I pay taxes. What you think the stores don't pay taxes. By the way it started with just one state that had medical marijuana , and now there are quite a few. Any imbecile can see the writing is on the wall and it will be legalized soon. Only idiots like Clinton say ignorant things like I didn't inhale. Do you think anyone bought that.
So I won't say that since Clinton admitted smoking weed and Bush said he did Cocaine that doing weed and cocaine is the way to get to be President , if you stop saying it is somehow a bad thing.
I also posted here a while back if you could read a list of famous and influential people that admitted to smoking pot.
So yea I guess if it is good enough for a President I won't feel to bad joining him. LOL!
God your an idiot for trying to talk on something you have no personal knowledge of.
As far as homeland security caring about it I'll take my chances. LOL!
Are you aware that they feds busted a bunch of Pot stores in Oakland and the Federal Attorney refused to prosecute. He cited States rights. There is a fact for you.
By the way Colorado is a medical marijuana state.
Also I can now hang you by your own rules and words. You said your only reason for attacking me was that you were tired of me bullying people here.
What does my medical use of marijuana have to do with bullying. NOT A DAMN THING.
Then you wrote that some girl was going to come here and smoke my weed and I should use a condom even though you know I am happily married.
WHAT DOES THAT HVE TO DO WITH BULLYING?
NOT A DAMN THING.
You contradict your own rules constantly and marginalize yourself by doing so. You are good for one thing comic relief as you try so hard to come off as all knowing and wise , but are just another little know nothing punk with a computer and the TITL IF KING TROLL.
Now you are trying to tell Reg Indy how to be a lawyer. I have one question for you.
HAVE YOU PASSED THE BAR. Didn't think so. So you are not qualified to even discuss it intelligently. Let me know when you pass the bar and I'll listen to what you have to say about legalities. Until then you are no better than any other layman and moron commenting on something they have no expertise at.
You really do think you are God don't you. Can you imagine you in a room full of lawyers who went to school and passed the bar laughing wildly at you while you try to tell them their profession.
Talk about Priceless.
My Step Son is coming back from Afghanistan this weekend , so you might have to fight with yourself a while.
Now I will demand an answer from you or I will just repost this over and over until you either answer or you look like the moron you are.
I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO SPEAK ON CAMPUS BY THE RAMREPUBLIC, AND ONE COULD ARGUE THE COLLEGIAN ( AS THEY PUBLISHED MY LETTER WHEN I PRAISED THEM FOR AN ARTICLE OTHERS WERE TRASHING THEM FOR ). YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ASKED TO SPEAK AT ALL. THEREFORE I HAVE MORE RIGHT TO SPEAK HERE THEN YOU DO.
You just speak for your self and this is according to you. No one wants to hear you but yet you drone on incessantly. I on the other hand have had students ask to hear my words.
Typical Liberal , intolerant , trying to censor free speech , violating rules while trying to hold his opponent up for breaking rules making him a hypocrite.
[/QUOTE]
{Posting from the alias above.}
Admit it, Craigy-baby. You were pretty baked when you wrote that last posting.
Here's the part I like best.
[QUOTE id="c99bff06-a02e-4a58-b143-0a6d17f728e4"]
Now I will demand an answer from you or I will just repost this over and over until you either answer or you look like the moron you are.
I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO SPEAK ON CAMPUS BY THE RAMREPUBLIC, AND ONE COULD ARGUE THE COLLEGIAN ( AS THEY PUBLISHED MY LETTER WHEN I PRAISED THEM FOR AN ARTICLE OTHERS WERE TRASHING THEM FOR ). YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ASKED TO SPEAK AT ALL. THEREFORE I HAVE MORE RIGHT TO SPEAK HERE THEN YOU DO.
[/QUOTE]
And what, perchance, is the question that you demand an answer for?
I know that you will keep us abreast of your travel plans and event planning for your speaking enchangement in our fair city.
As for your challenge, you ASSUME that your goals are the only ones that another person should have. It is your goal, not mine, to speak to an audience and to be published for his straw-man right-wing arguments.
I like how you became Ben-the-cow in defense of Reg Indy. You wrote:
----
Now you are trying to tell Reg Indy how to be a lawyer. I have one question for you.
HAVE YOU PASSED THE BAR. Didn't think so. So you are not qualified to even discuss it intelligently. Let me know when you pass the bar and I'll listen to what you have to say about legalities. Until then you are no better than any other layman and moron commenting on something they have no expertise at.
----
So, Craigy-baby, in your own words, "HAVE YOU PASSED THE BAR. Didn't think so. So you are not qualified to even discuss it intelligently."
In fact, Craigy-baby, again in your own words,
"you are no better than any other layman and moron commenting on something they have no expertise at."
Lots of Hawley's chorus going on in your muddled posting(s): "Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat."
Next time, don't paraphrase my words, because you rewrite them erroneously. The example of that was your version of your lecherous way, not mine.
Your wrote:
"No one wants to hear you but yet you drone on incessantly. I on the other hand have had students ask to hear my words."
Asking and receiving are two different things. Can you deliver? Do you even have anything worthwhile to say? If admission is free, it might be good for a laugh. Do keep us informed.
And of course, you couldn't resist a final chorus of "Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Mistate & Bait. Repeat." You concluded with:
"Typical Liberal , intolerant , trying to censor free speech , violating rules while trying to hold his opponent up for breaking rules making him a hypocrite."
Let me guess. You must be baiting me and a whole bunch of "typical liberals" here. No wait; there is at least one instance of mistate as you bring up the "censor" word. Lots of hype for sure about a small, insignificant, off-hand comment about the "gentleman's rules" that at least I was going to follow in diverting this throwaway thread. Better this one than a meaningful thread, right? BTW, it really isn't diverting the threat if no one actually seriously wants to talk about panties... Ooops. Is that what your true intent was, Craigy-baby? To talk about panties?
Craigy-baby, with your last postings, you have really turned a corner. In fact you have gone around the bend. Such a comedian you are, the Steven Colbert of the Collegian online forum.
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 2: Registered 420 Jimmy
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 4: 9/11 Christian Science Treatment
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 5: Mind Your P's & Q's
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 6: Q Dots
Choice Quotations from the Hee-Haw-ley Himself showing his God-given character & charm:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
* 25
* 26
* 27
* 28
* 29
* 30
* 31
* 32
* 33
* 34
* 35
* 36
* 37
* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* 46
* 47
* 48
* 49
* 50
* 51
* 52
* 53
* 54
* 55
* 56
* 57
* 58
* 59
* 60
* 61
* 62
* 63
* 64
* 65
* 66
* 67
* 68
* 69
* 70
* 71
* 72
* 73
* 74
* 75
* 76
* 77
* 78
* 79
* 80
* 81
* 82
* 83
* 84
* 85
* 86
* 87
* 88
* 89
* 90
* 91
* 92
* 93
* 94
* 95
* 96
* 97
* 98
* 99
* 100
* 101
* 102
* 103
* 104
* 105
* 106
* 107
* 108
* 109
* 110
* 111
* 112
* 113
* 114
* 115
* 116
* 117
* 118
* 119
* 120
* 121
* 122
* 123
* 124
* 125
* 126
* 127
* 128
* 129
* 130
* 131
* 132
* 133
* 134
* 135
* 136
* 137
* 138
* 139
* 140
* 141
* 142
* 143
* 144
* 145
* 146
* 147
* 148
* 149
* 150
* 151
* 152
* 153
* 154
* 155
* 156
* 157
* 158
* 159
* 160
* 161
* 162
* 163
* 164
* 165
* 166
* 167
* 168
* 169
* 170
* 171
* 172
* 173
* 174
* 175
* 176
* 177
* 178
* 179
* 180
* 181
* 182
* 183
* 184
* 185
* 186
* 187
* 188
* 189
* 190
* 191
* 192
* 193
* 194
* 195
* 196
* 197
* 198
Choice Quotations from Hee-Haw-ley's Echo Chamber, Registered Independent:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
* 25
* 26
* 27
* 28
* 29
* 30
* 31
* 32
* 33
* 34
* 35
* 36
* 37
* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* 46
* 47
* 48
* 49
* 50
* 51
Choice Quotations from Hee-Haw-ley's Superior Officer, Sgt. Asshat:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
Quotations from Jesus H. Christ:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
Quotations from others:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21