She also served successfully as secretary of state in an essentially scandal free administration, no matter how much republicans wish it were otherwise.
Wait,... what? That's like saying that Nixon would have had a scandal free administration if they'd just avoided proving the allegations...
Show me someone who's actually saying that, and we'll have a common ground. But I don't know anyone who believes who argues against creating fewer pollutants, managing resources more wisely, or pursuing more efficient and sustainable energy.
See, this is precisely why you have such resistance. For people like you it's not about a logical progression of technology, or a measured response to possible or even likely impacts, You behave as though you have the one single whole and true answer, and that anyone who deviates from your position by even 5 degrees is a flat-earther who obviously eats babies for sport. You come across as a cultist zealot rather than an even marginally reasonable person, and it does far more harm to your cause than good.
What's being argued, right now, is that we don't have a sufficient grasp on the technology, or a suitably unified scientific/sociopolitical agenda.
We dont even have a sufficient grasp of what is happening, what the true root causes are and what percentage of impact each has, or to what degree the global ecosystem is able to offset the impacts. How the hell do you build a "solution" to a problem you cant even fully quantify?
Arent people getting tired of these egocentric asshats that he repeatedly tell us, "Well, yeah, we were wrong about that. And that, and that,... and that. And that outcome wasnt quite what we predicted. But we're exactly right this time! And you'd be a fool not to completely endorse everything we say and do precisely as we say or the world is going to end!"
Ah, I see. So it's not that we aren't entitled to read the bill before we are held accountable to following it. It's that we're just too stupid to understand it, and only elected elites have whit sufficient to appreciate or comprehend its content.
No matter what spin you put on it, the statement pronounces that there are those in power who are allowed to be a part of the process, and the rest of us just need to shut up and be told what's good for us.
In full context, in any context, the only way to interpret that statement is that We The People are not entitled to read a law proposed by Congress, and are only required to be in compliance to a law already passed by Congress.
And a google search on "Bush stupid" really does return fifty-two million, eight hundred thousand results.
That doesn't prove that the Bush's are actually any more stupid that any number of Democrats. It just proves the press gets a stiffy every time they get a whiff of another Republican foible they can beat to death.
Conversely, if you google actual stupid shit said by Democrats (like the one in my sig...) the vast majority of hits you'll see are explanations about how it was taken out of context, how it was just a honest slip, or how it's a trumped up scandal. The Vice President can suggest firing off a few shotgun blasts from your porch to ward off intruders, and that's fine. The President can suggest he's been to all 57 states, and that's just fine. But if a Republican says something dumb, you'd think they just punched a preschooler.
Yes. Dream of an educated and intellectually honest electorate that embraces the notion of government staying the fuck out of their business. But until we squash the idea that government has to be there to regulate everything, make it "fair", and save us from ourselves, we're pretty well screwed.
Absolutely accurate assessment. It was dumb shit. And as soon as people figured out it was little more than dumb shit by a backward dipshit redneck, they distanced themselves fast because they knew it was WRONG.
Quite unlike the cult of personality aimed at certain political figures who will be defended to the media's dying breath, and in turn eaten up by weak-minded, intellectually dishonest populace, no matter how egregious the failures or betrayals may be.
Not just people who consider themselves Tea Partiers (which I am not included in), but also those who are independents and libertarians feel a need to challenge elected officials to actually uphold their oaths of office. They are currently slamming both Democrats and Republicans alike because they are sick and tired of having stupid shit rammed down their throats. You, and many like you seem to want to excuse every power grab, every lie, every failure, and every injustice. And I cant tell if it's because you're terrified of being called a racist or a misogynists (like you're so fond of calling anyone who challenges this administration, or Democrats in general), or if it's because you're too shallow to call out the people you voted for.
And while we're on the topic, and as you eluded to but cant seem to make the leap of critical thinking to comprehend; You allow these idiots in Washington to keep taking more power, and keep telling you that you have to do this, and you cant do that. And you allow it because you think this guy is so awesome and kind , he won a Nobel Peace Prize for Christ's sake! You believe its impossible that he/they/whatever wont abuse the powers they are taking. But what if the next guy, or the guy 4 elections from now is the worst of the worst right-wing bible thumping gun toting complete fucking nutjob?
YOU GAVE HIM ALL THE POWER HE NEEDS TO FUCK YOU OVER, AND SCREAMED AT THE IDIOT TEA PARTIERS FOR COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.
When you're bitching in a decade because shit has come completely off the fucking rails, don't come talk to me about.
Actually most Tea Party people just want government to leave them the fuck alone. They disdain government's intrusion, they don't trust it, and they would be far from interested in being directly associated with it. Most wouldn't run for office for fear of the rot in DC contaminating themselves. For the most part they just want government to be held to the limits that people like George Washington deliberately and purposefully crafted into the Constitution.
It's people who write law after law saying stupid shit like you're not allowed to buy a 32oz coke in a restaurant, or that you can have salt shakers on the table that want control over everything, and those people are not Tea Partiers. Those people are mocked by Tea Partiers. Those are the people who write laws that mean to prevent you from ever becoming guilty of making a mistake, rather than assuming your innocent, like our system of laws is intended.
And to elaborate:
I don't wish to grant any new power to ANY authority. I don't want the President, the House, the Senate, the EPA, the Dept, or Ed, the Dept of Defense, the Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Homeland Security... NONE OF THEM.
Today, in this period, under these leaders, with this global stage, it might seem completely reasonable to grant powers to those whom we entrust to govern us, tomorrow under a new President, and a new Congress, and a new global stage, things well me wholly different. 25 years from now you cant say "well that's not what I meant when I gave that power." Your opinion is no longer required.
Absolutely the opposite. I pin my hopes on the *lack* of another George Washington. I believe that the founders produced the best protection the common man has ever had. And while it is most certainly not perfect, it has not been matched in history in its primary purpose to prevent tyranny over a populace.
If that doctrine is faithfully upheld the power is rightfully in the hands of the governed, rather than those who govern. If the principles outlined therein are enforced, then it matters little who is actually in power, because the limitations on their impact to the governed is absolute. It's not until short-term populace influence modifies those powers specifically outlined by the founders grants power to those who can convince a short sighted and angry electorate to contradict the Constitution do we find ourselves in a bind.
It's one thing to say a business cant refuse all services to a person based on that person's inclusion in protected class (race, sex, age, etc.). It's another entirely to say that the business must participate in a private ceremony or activity that they disagree with.
I'm not remotely anti-gay. But I dont think any person should be required by government to participate in any private activity, of any kind. And just like the gay marriage cake example (which by the way I dont think government should have ANY part in recognizing or not, just like my heterosexual marriage), a Muslim baker should never be required to make a bar mitzvah cake, a T-Shirt company should not be required to print pro 2nd Amendment t-shirts, or a theater owned by a Catholic family should not be required to allow a showing of 50 Shades of Grey.
What about the case of the photographer who was sued because she wouldnt do the wedding photos for a gay wedding? What if another photographer is sued because they refuse to do the photos for a rifle demonstration? Or a military funeral? If that photographer has a problem with guns or the military, they shouldnt even be required to explain themselves, let alone provide the service.
You cant blur the lines. As soon as you do you the assholes come out of the woodwork just to be assholes.
It's a sad state of affairs when random_forum_schlub_0001 is judged as a peer to "journalists". But it sure explains a lot about how so many people have such ridiculous stance on any number of topics.
Is it better then to just shut up and allow an elite few to tell you exactly what you will and will not be allowed to do? Or say? Or drive, or wear or eat? This assumes of course that the elite are able or willing to actually provide you with basic staples of life, but history suggests otherwise.
At some point when governance becomes a very real tyranny would you remain a "safe" obedient tool? Or would you risk what is necessary to be free?
Why is that a problem? There's nothing at all nefarious about buying and selling MTG or any other CCGs. In fact that producers of the cards rely on it. It fuels a good portion of their sales.
As far as becoming a rival to a site, so what? If he can do it better then more power to him. If he can get people to help him to it better for free, even more so. In the end, what do you care unless you have some vested interested in one of the services that already does this kind of thing.
I know that you probably believe that because it's the simplistic hoax that the left and the media would like to foist on you. It makes it so much easier to push their agenda, since its fashionable to bash Christianity these days. But as an atheist I can say that its far from the truth. The homeschool movement has little to do with religion, and is instead heavily pushed by two major factors; 1) the lack of emphasis on Constitutional principles in education including taxation, law and national finance, and 2) the trainwreck that Common Core is.
Other factors include the rising violence of kids in school, the consistently sliding educational standards, and the culture of rebellion that is not just tolerated but often encouraged.
Obama has been in office for 6 years, moving with regular consistency in contradiction to ideals of Reganomics, but our current citizen opportunities are Reagan's fault?
At what point can you be intellectually honest enough to recognize that our current economic policies are disastrous.
We're $18Trillion in debt. We have roughly 1/2 a trillion in deficit per year. This President (and the one before him, easily as culpable), are bankrupting our nation, and setting policies that have failed -every- -single- -time- they have been implemented globally throughout history. No nation has ever spent their way out of debt, not matter how hard they've tried.
Please, I beg you. Look up Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman. They are both very respected and accomplished economists, and there are hundreds of recorded lectures from them available on YouTube. They can demonstrate these ideas for you in no uncertain terms.
Ok, the observable evidence over the past decade suggests that at the least the impact of the prevailing theory is highly overstated, and potentially flat out wrong.
As a middle-aged person who had some college both right out of high school and again just a couple of years ago, I wholly agree. When I returned recently I was in classes with people that truly didn't know what the basic structure of a paper should look like; thesis, argument, conclusion. They could reason through simple assignments and complete work that was even marginally acceptable. Yet they not only passed the classes, they received B's and C's. And this wasn't a community college. This was a nationally known and respected institution. It was horrible. I spent as much time on my own classwork as I did in writing detailed tutorials for my classmates on how to do theirs.
The quality of college education has declined as rapidly as the tuitions have climbed. We shouldn't need to send our kids to any college to learn how to research, or how to do algebra. This is material that they should have mastered before leaving high school. Allowing the lower educational standards to nose-dive to the lowest common denominators is not evidence for the need for free college educations. These kids are more interested in tonight's episode of reality TV crap than they are in what they will do with the rest of their lives. They can't name the vice president. They cant tell you the co-equal branches of government. They cant describe the events that led up to the Civil War or the Revolutionary War, and they have no concept of budgeting their finances. But we're going to provide for more free education? How about if we actually require that they learn something from the free education they already get first and then, maybe, talk about more.
Except that France is insolvent, and is proposing (or implemented?) tax rates as high as 75%. No small part of those problems are rooted in the entitlements promised to labor groups and retirees which they now know they cannot actually pay for.
I don't support an overtime exemption for anyone, but I cant fathom how anyone would recommend France as a beacon of accomplishment in labor or finance.
Slashdot Mirror
She also served successfully as secretary of state in an essentially scandal free administration, no matter how much republicans wish it were otherwise.
Wait, ... what? That's like saying that Nixon would have had a scandal free administration if they'd just avoided proving the allegations...
+1
It's a shame that there's a cult of personality rather than an intellectually honest evaluation of performance.
Show me someone who's actually saying that, and we'll have a common ground. But I don't know anyone who believes who argues against creating fewer pollutants, managing resources more wisely, or pursuing more efficient and sustainable energy.
See, this is precisely why you have such resistance. For people like you it's not about a logical progression of technology, or a measured response to possible or even likely impacts, You behave as though you have the one single whole and true answer, and that anyone who deviates from your position by even 5 degrees is a flat-earther who obviously eats babies for sport. You come across as a cultist zealot rather than an even marginally reasonable person, and it does far more harm to your cause than good.
Step 1: Tell China that they can no longer spew carbon into the atmosphere and that their industry is now under the authority of the U.N.
Step 2: Break out the marshmallows.
What's being argued, right now, is that we don't have a sufficient grasp on the technology, or a suitably unified scientific/sociopolitical agenda.
We dont even have a sufficient grasp of what is happening, what the true root causes are and what percentage of impact each has, or to what degree the global ecosystem is able to offset the impacts. How the hell do you build a "solution" to a problem you cant even fully quantify?
... and that. And that outcome wasnt quite what we predicted. But we're exactly right this time! And you'd be a fool not to completely endorse everything we say and do precisely as we say or the world is going to end!"
Arent people getting tired of these egocentric asshats that he repeatedly tell us, "Well, yeah, we were wrong about that. And that, and that,
Ah, I see. So it's not that we aren't entitled to read the bill before we are held accountable to following it. It's that we're just too stupid to understand it, and only elected elites have whit sufficient to appreciate or comprehend its content.
No matter what spin you put on it, the statement pronounces that there are those in power who are allowed to be a part of the process, and the rest of us just need to shut up and be told what's good for us.
In full context, in any context, the only way to interpret that statement is that We The People are not entitled to read a law proposed by Congress, and are only required to be in compliance to a law already passed by Congress.
Tell me some other way to interpret it.
And a google search on "Bush stupid" really does return fifty-two million, eight hundred thousand results.
That doesn't prove that the Bush's are actually any more stupid that any number of Democrats. It just proves the press gets a stiffy every time they get a whiff of another Republican foible they can beat to death.
Conversely, if you google actual stupid shit said by Democrats (like the one in my sig...) the vast majority of hits you'll see are explanations about how it was taken out of context, how it was just a honest slip, or how it's a trumped up scandal. The Vice President can suggest firing off a few shotgun blasts from your porch to ward off intruders, and that's fine. The President can suggest he's been to all 57 states, and that's just fine. But if a Republican says something dumb, you'd think they just punched a preschooler.
Yes. Dream of an educated and intellectually honest electorate that embraces the notion of government staying the fuck out of their business. But until we squash the idea that government has to be there to regulate everything, make it "fair", and save us from ourselves, we're pretty well screwed.
Hitler was begged by the people of Germany to consolidate power.
Absolutely accurate assessment. It was dumb shit. And as soon as people figured out it was little more than dumb shit by a backward dipshit redneck, they distanced themselves fast because they knew it was WRONG.
Quite unlike the cult of personality aimed at certain political figures who will be defended to the media's dying breath, and in turn eaten up by weak-minded, intellectually dishonest populace, no matter how egregious the failures or betrayals may be.
Not just people who consider themselves Tea Partiers (which I am not included in), but also those who are independents and libertarians feel a need to challenge elected officials to actually uphold their oaths of office. They are currently slamming both Democrats and Republicans alike because they are sick and tired of having stupid shit rammed down their throats. You, and many like you seem to want to excuse every power grab, every lie, every failure, and every injustice. And I cant tell if it's because you're terrified of being called a racist or a misogynists (like you're so fond of calling anyone who challenges this administration, or Democrats in general), or if it's because you're too shallow to call out the people you voted for.
And while we're on the topic, and as you eluded to but cant seem to make the leap of critical thinking to comprehend; You allow these idiots in Washington to keep taking more power, and keep telling you that you have to do this, and you cant do that. And you allow it because you think this guy is so awesome and kind , he won a Nobel Peace Prize for Christ's sake! You believe its impossible that he/they/whatever wont abuse the powers they are taking. But what if the next guy, or the guy 4 elections from now is the worst of the worst right-wing bible thumping gun toting complete fucking nutjob?
YOU GAVE HIM ALL THE POWER HE NEEDS TO FUCK YOU OVER, AND SCREAMED AT THE IDIOT TEA PARTIERS FOR COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.
When you're bitching in a decade because shit has come completely off the fucking rails, don't come talk to me about.
Actually most Tea Party people just want government to leave them the fuck alone. They disdain government's intrusion, they don't trust it, and they would be far from interested in being directly associated with it. Most wouldn't run for office for fear of the rot in DC contaminating themselves. For the most part they just want government to be held to the limits that people like George Washington deliberately and purposefully crafted into the Constitution.
It's people who write law after law saying stupid shit like you're not allowed to buy a 32oz coke in a restaurant, or that you can have salt shakers on the table that want control over everything, and those people are not Tea Partiers. Those people are mocked by Tea Partiers. Those are the people who write laws that mean to prevent you from ever becoming guilty of making a mistake, rather than assuming your innocent, like our system of laws is intended.
And to elaborate:
I don't wish to grant any new power to ANY authority. I don't want the President, the House, the Senate, the EPA, the Dept, or Ed, the Dept of Defense, the Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Homeland Security... NONE OF THEM.
Today, in this period, under these leaders, with this global stage, it might seem completely reasonable to grant powers to those whom we entrust to govern us, tomorrow under a new President, and a new Congress, and a new global stage, things well me wholly different. 25 years from now you cant say "well that's not what I meant when I gave that power." Your opinion is no longer required.
Absolutely the opposite. I pin my hopes on the *lack* of another George Washington. I believe that the founders produced the best protection the common man has ever had. And while it is most certainly not perfect, it has not been matched in history in its primary purpose to prevent tyranny over a populace.
If that doctrine is faithfully upheld the power is rightfully in the hands of the governed, rather than those who govern. If the principles outlined therein are enforced, then it matters little who is actually in power, because the limitations on their impact to the governed is absolute. It's not until short-term populace influence modifies those powers specifically outlined by the founders grants power to those who can convince a short sighted and angry electorate to contradict the Constitution do we find ourselves in a bind.
It's one thing to say a business cant refuse all services to a person based on that person's inclusion in protected class (race, sex, age, etc.). It's another entirely to say that the business must participate in a private ceremony or activity that they disagree with.
I'm not remotely anti-gay. But I dont think any person should be required by government to participate in any private activity, of any kind. And just like the gay marriage cake example (which by the way I dont think government should have ANY part in recognizing or not, just like my heterosexual marriage), a Muslim baker should never be required to make a bar mitzvah cake, a T-Shirt company should not be required to print pro 2nd Amendment t-shirts, or a theater owned by a Catholic family should not be required to allow a showing of 50 Shades of Grey.
What about the case of the photographer who was sued because she wouldnt do the wedding photos for a gay wedding? What if another photographer is sued because they refuse to do the photos for a rifle demonstration? Or a military funeral? If that photographer has a problem with guns or the military, they shouldnt even be required to explain themselves, let alone provide the service.
You cant blur the lines. As soon as you do you the assholes come out of the woodwork just to be assholes.
Yet here he is making noise all over the place as if he is trying to attract attention like a 15 year old drama queen poking a stick at a wild animal.
Well obviously it's a far better business model to be really really quiet and not let those pesky customers know that you exist.
It's a sad state of affairs when random_forum_schlub_0001 is judged as a peer to "journalists". But it sure explains a lot about how so many people have such ridiculous stance on any number of topics.
The irony is that you could be referring to either of the quotes you posted...
Is it better then to just shut up and allow an elite few to tell you exactly what you will and will not be allowed to do? Or say? Or drive, or wear or eat? This assumes of course that the elite are able or willing to actually provide you with basic staples of life, but history suggests otherwise.
At some point when governance becomes a very real tyranny would you remain a "safe" obedient tool? Or would you risk what is necessary to be free?
Why is that a problem? There's nothing at all nefarious about buying and selling MTG or any other CCGs. In fact that producers of the cards rely on it. It fuels a good portion of their sales.
As far as becoming a rival to a site, so what? If he can do it better then more power to him. If he can get people to help him to it better for free, even more so. In the end, what do you care unless you have some vested interested in one of the services that already does this kind of thing.
I know that you probably believe that because it's the simplistic hoax that the left and the media would like to foist on you. It makes it so much easier to push their agenda, since its fashionable to bash Christianity these days. But as an atheist I can say that its far from the truth. The homeschool movement has little to do with religion, and is instead heavily pushed by two major factors; 1) the lack of emphasis on Constitutional principles in education including taxation, law and national finance, and 2) the trainwreck that Common Core is.
Other factors include the rising violence of kids in school, the consistently sliding educational standards, and the culture of rebellion that is not just tolerated but often encouraged.
Obama has been in office for 6 years, moving with regular consistency in contradiction to ideals of Reganomics, but our current citizen opportunities are Reagan's fault?
At what point can you be intellectually honest enough to recognize that our current economic policies are disastrous.
We're $18Trillion in debt. We have roughly 1/2 a trillion in deficit per year. This President (and the one before him, easily as culpable), are bankrupting our nation, and setting policies that have failed -every- -single- -time- they have been implemented globally throughout history. No nation has ever spent their way out of debt, not matter how hard they've tried.
Please, I beg you. Look up Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman. They are both very respected and accomplished economists, and there are hundreds of recorded lectures from them available on YouTube. They can demonstrate these ideas for you in no uncertain terms.
Ok, the observable evidence over the past decade suggests that at the least the impact of the prevailing theory is highly overstated, and potentially flat out wrong.
Now what?
As a middle-aged person who had some college both right out of high school and again just a couple of years ago, I wholly agree. When I returned recently I was in classes with people that truly didn't know what the basic structure of a paper should look like; thesis, argument, conclusion. They could reason through simple assignments and complete work that was even marginally acceptable. Yet they not only passed the classes, they received B's and C's. And this wasn't a community college. This was a nationally known and respected institution. It was horrible. I spent as much time on my own classwork as I did in writing detailed tutorials for my classmates on how to do theirs.
The quality of college education has declined as rapidly as the tuitions have climbed. We shouldn't need to send our kids to any college to learn how to research, or how to do algebra. This is material that they should have mastered before leaving high school. Allowing the lower educational standards to nose-dive to the lowest common denominators is not evidence for the need for free college educations. These kids are more interested in tonight's episode of reality TV crap than they are in what they will do with the rest of their lives. They can't name the vice president. They cant tell you the co-equal branches of government. They cant describe the events that led up to the Civil War or the Revolutionary War, and they have no concept of budgeting their finances. But we're going to provide for more free education? How about if we actually require that they learn something from the free education they already get first and then, maybe, talk about more.
Except that France is insolvent, and is proposing (or implemented?) tax rates as high as 75%. No small part of those problems are rooted in the entitlements promised to labor groups and retirees which they now know they cannot actually pay for.
I don't support an overtime exemption for anyone, but I cant fathom how anyone would recommend France as a beacon of accomplishment in labor or finance.