It's up there with the Democrat who thought islands would capsize if too much stuff was on them.
That's just stupid not actually offensive.
Plus that was from a congressmen, not a guy running for senate, I assume that Senators are sorta smart where as the congressmen are a bunch of rabble :-p (and don't get me started about state congress types those guys are kindergarteners.
Not to support any crazy "we must over throw the government" types, but that article is so full of crap you could use it to fertilize your tomatoes.
I'm not going to get into a long dragged out discussion as to why it's full of it, but i will say that it is possible to dislike the president without it being a race issue. Painting every conservative a racist is like a conservative calling all liberals Communists (or hippies if you prefer). Does it describe a portion of the group? Yes, but not most of them. If you have to stoop to that sort of Lowest common denominator crap to make your point then your own views should be considered suspect.
The problem of political figures passively(or actively) condoning calls for violence is a serious one, but it's one that has to be discussed in a reasonable and mature fashion. It shouldn't be used to whip people into frenzy over phantom threats to their safety.
PS: The Nuge is really getting a raw deal on this one. If the secret service decided to investigate every musician who said crazy crap on stage, they wouldn't have any time left over to actually protect the president.
PS: The Nuge is really getting a raw deal on this one. If the secret service decided to investigate every musician who said crazy crap on stage, they wouldn't have any time left over to actually protect the president.
You realize that they do investigate every musician who says crazy crap related to that on stage. Every single one. No exceptions.
PS: The Nuge is really getting a raw deal on this one. If the secret service decided to investigate every musician who said crazy crap on stage, they wouldn't have any time left over to actually protect the president.
You realize that theydo investigate every musician who says crazy crap related to that on stage. Every single one. No exceptions.
You learn something new every day. I cant help but wonder how much that costs.
You're right, the Secret Service should probably just ignore people who tell large crowds to kill the president. You know, since it's expensive.
I implied that I wondered if it was worth investigating every musician who said crazy shit on stage. I was also suggesting that Rym might have been overstating the secret services abilities/budget.
Of course the secret service needs to investigate possible threats. I'm not going to say otherwise. What i'm trying to say is that either:
A: You don't hear about every investigation, whether because A:the're not that big a deal and Nugent's investigation became a public matter because someone wanted to smear him.
or
B: There aren't actually that many secret service investigations and they spent money investigating an ageing rockstar because of his politics.
You're right, the Secret Service should probably just ignore people who tell large crowds to kill the president. You know, since it's expensive.
I implied that I wondered if it was worth investigating every musician who said crazy shit on stage. I was also suggesting that Rym might have been overstating the secret services abilities/budget.
Of course the secret service needs to investigate possible threats. I'm not going to say otherwise. What i'm trying to say is that either:
A: You don't hear about every investigation, whether because A:the're not that big a deal and Nugent's investigation became a public matter because someone wanted to smear him.
or
B: There aren't actually that many secret service investigations and they spent money investigating an ageing rockstar because of his politics.
A friend of mine got a visit by some Secret Service agents because he threatened to kill GWB on his myspace account. The service takes every threat to the president's life very seriously, no matter how small or insignificant it may seem. The investigation into the Nuge was publicized because he is a very public figure making some very public remarks.
A friend of mine got a visit by some Secret Service agents because he threatened to kill GWB on his myspace account. The service takes every threat to the president's life very seriously, no matter how small or insignificant it may seem. The investigation into the Nuge was publicized because he is a very public figure making some very public remarks.
Damn. I didn't realize they were so thorough. It's good to know that the folks guarding the president are that on the ball.
Despite that, I cant help but feel that the publicity wasn't just an unfortunate byproduct of the celebrity of those involved. The secret service is competent enough to conduct an investigation without attracting attention.
The question becomes who wanted the Publicity? Was it Nugent wanting to play the victim of some evil government conspiracy? Was it someone in the current administration who wanted to send a message?
Or perhaps the most likely and terrifying of all; It was the lizard people hoping to distract us from their takeover of our government!!!
RUN! FLEE! THE LIZARD MEN ARE AMONG US! SAVE YOURSELF FROM THEIR COLD REPTILIAN CLAWS!
So I've been thinking about stoopids in congress & other elected offices. What if there were a mandatory test to run for office, written by two well-respected authorities each for various fields (science, medicine, international policy, rights advocacy, constitutional law, economics, labor, military, religious history, etc.). It wouldn't determine eligibility, but would have to be publicized on any relevant promotional document (e.g. Paul Ryan R-WI 34/100). That way voters could see how current a candidate was in relevant categories.
Who gets to choose the well-respected authorities? Because you could very well wind up with Dr. James Dobson as an authority on Jesus-rode-a-dinosaur-type science, for instance. It's a recipe for disaster.
Dobson would be a candidate for "religious history" but he would probably lose to a more knowledgable professor of theological theory or something... but yes, the idea has its flaws. I mean, how do cardinals *really* pick the pope.. -.-
Also isn't there a law that says "there shall be no test"? In theory, public representatives are supposed to be the people their constituents want. The problem isn't that there aren't enough measures to keep idiots out, it's that there is no good system to attract and keep smart honest people in.
It wouldn't determine eligibility, but would have to be publicized on any relevant promotional document (e.g. Paul Ryan R-WI 34/100). That way voters could see how current a candidate was in relevant categories.
I have this theory that we'd all be better off if we stopped electing lawyers. Lawyers only know about law, not all the things law affects. I want a congress made up of physicists, farmers, anthropologists, construction workers, bankers, authors, engineers, biologists, historians, soldiers, and a few dozen other professions because then congress would know a little something about what they're voting on.
I have this theory that we'd all be better off if we stopped electing lawyers. Lawyers only know about law, not all the things law affects. I want a congress made up of physicists, farmers, anthropologists, construction workers, bankers, authors, engineers, biologists, historians, soldiers, and a few dozen other professions because then congress would know a little something about what they're voting on.
This. This is what people like Jefferson wanted to happen. Unfortunately, what we have now is mor of a plutocracy of assholes than the enlightened democracy that was intended.
Of course, all of my friends at present are lawyers, so I know a bit about their habits in the wild. Most of them (I'd say a good 95%) have undergrad degrees in either history, english, or political science. They're not very concerned with science. Now, there are many people who have those undergrad degrees who turn out to be genuinely bright and interesting people. Lawyers, however, tend to get those degrees merely because law schools require some sort of bachelors degree and those degrees generally don't require a lot of icky math and science.
Add to that (that they generally know next to nothing, and I seriously mean nothing, about science) the fact that a very, very large percentage of people attracted to law are self selected for being arrogant, know-it-all (especially when they don't know anything about a certain topic - they think their natural brightness means they either know everything or they can learn everything within minutes) assholes who think they are infallible, and that a very large percentage of the asshole politicians you hear about become lawyers for the express purpose of becoming politicians, and you have a dangerous witch's brew of fail.
Sorry to double post, but I have just another thing or two to say about the above:
Lawyers are trained to litigate, which basically means that we are very good at quibbling. In fact, I don't think that there are many of us who didn't come from a science or engineering background who don't think that the whole world of knowledge can simply be litigated and that there are no real, final answers. History, english, and political science, the most popular undergrad degrees for lawyers can help to foster this attitude.
So, what you end up hearing a lot from lawyers is the type of thing I heard from one of my friends when I told him that Paul Ryan thinks that life should be defined to begin at fertilization. The conversation went like this:
He: "Yes, but when is fertilization? Is it when X happens or Y happens or at some other point?"
Me: "No, fertilization is a pretty well defined event that can't be quibbled much about."
He: "Well, it sounds to me like it's the question of when life begins, and we can argue about that all day."
Me: "No, it's not that type of philosophical question. Fertilization is a recognized event. It's about as bright-line an event as you're likely to see in biology."
He: "Well, I like Ryan's medicare plan because I'm rich, so I no longer care to argue with you about it. We'll just have to disagree about whether fertilization can be a well-defined event."
. . . and so it goes. It's like my other friend who's convinced that there is no explanation for the evolution of the eye - when I told him how the eye evolved, he said, "That's interesting, but you have to admit that it's only one explanation." I said, "No. It's the only explanation", to which he replied that I've been reading too much "propaganda".
But yeah - these are the type of people who go into government.
Comments
Plus that was from a congressmen, not a guy running for senate, I assume that Senators are sorta smart where as the congressmen are a bunch of rabble :-p (and don't get me started about state congress types those guys are kindergarteners.
Democrazy in action.
I'm not going to get into a long dragged out discussion as to why it's full of it, but i will say that it is possible to dislike the president without it being a race issue. Painting every conservative a racist is like a conservative calling all liberals Communists (or hippies if you prefer). Does it describe a portion of the group? Yes, but not most of them. If you have to stoop to that sort of Lowest common denominator crap to make your point then your own views should be considered suspect.
The problem of political figures passively(or actively) condoning calls for violence is a serious one, but it's one that has to be discussed in a reasonable and mature fashion. It shouldn't be used to whip people into frenzy over phantom threats to their safety.
PS: The Nuge is really getting a raw deal on this one. If the secret service decided to investigate every musician who said crazy crap on stage, they wouldn't have any time left over to actually protect the president.
Of course the secret service needs to investigate possible threats. I'm not going to say otherwise. What i'm trying to say is that either:
A: You don't hear about every investigation, whether because A:the're not that big a deal and Nugent's investigation became a public matter because someone wanted to smear him.
or
B: There aren't actually that many secret service investigations and they spent money investigating an ageing rockstar because of his politics.
C: he's been specifically cited as an inspiration by crazy people who want to kill the President.
Despite that, I cant help but feel that the publicity wasn't just an unfortunate byproduct of the celebrity of those involved. The secret service is competent enough to conduct an investigation without attracting attention.
The question becomes who wanted the Publicity? Was it Nugent wanting to play the victim of some evil government conspiracy? Was it someone in the current administration who wanted to send a message?
Or perhaps the most likely and terrifying of all; It was the lizard people hoping to distract us from their takeover of our government!!!
RUN! FLEE! THE LIZARD MEN ARE AMONG US! SAVE YOURSELF FROM THEIR COLD REPTILIAN CLAWS!
lol this is the most active forum on amazon???
The best.
http://onion.com/NCtDQn
Of course, all of my friends at present are lawyers, so I know a bit about their habits in the wild. Most of them (I'd say a good 95%) have undergrad degrees in either history, english, or political science. They're not very concerned with science. Now, there are many people who have those undergrad degrees who turn out to be genuinely bright and interesting people. Lawyers, however, tend to get those degrees merely because law schools require some sort of bachelors degree and those degrees generally don't require a lot of icky math and science.
Add to that (that they generally know next to nothing, and I seriously mean nothing, about science) the fact that a very, very large percentage of people attracted to law are self selected for being arrogant, know-it-all (especially when they don't know anything about a certain topic - they think their natural brightness means they either know everything or they can learn everything within minutes) assholes who think they are infallible, and that a very large percentage of the asshole politicians you hear about become lawyers for the express purpose of becoming politicians, and you have a dangerous witch's brew of fail.
Lawyers are trained to litigate, which basically means that we are very good at quibbling. In fact, I don't think that there are many of us who didn't come from a science or engineering background who don't think that the whole world of knowledge can simply be litigated and that there are no real, final answers. History, english, and political science, the most popular undergrad degrees for lawyers can help to foster this attitude.
So, what you end up hearing a lot from lawyers is the type of thing I heard from one of my friends when I told him that Paul Ryan thinks that life should be defined to begin at fertilization. The conversation went like this:
He: "Yes, but when is fertilization? Is it when X happens or Y happens or at some other point?"
Me: "No, fertilization is a pretty well defined event that can't be quibbled much about."
He: "Well, it sounds to me like it's the question of when life begins, and we can argue about that all day."
Me: "No, it's not that type of philosophical question. Fertilization is a recognized event. It's about as bright-line an event as you're likely to see in biology."
He: "Well, I like Ryan's medicare plan because I'm rich, so I no longer care to argue with you about it. We'll just have to disagree about whether fertilization can be a well-defined event."
. . . and so it goes. It's like my other friend who's convinced that there is no explanation for the evolution of the eye - when I told him how the eye evolved, he said, "That's interesting, but you have to admit that it's only one explanation." I said, "No. It's the only explanation", to which he replied that I've been reading too much "propaganda".
But yeah - these are the type of people who go into government.