No more or less nutty than you and the average Trump supporter.

he really should have just had her on. i think they've both gone a little nutty over the years. maybe if they dealt with each other face to face, they're would be a lot more to sink you teeth into.

The nutty professor shouldnt be on this list at all. The Blazing Saddles fart scene should be #1. Its also the first fart scene ever filmed in a movie or tv show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXHkFZ-nG4Y

Governmental enforcement of anti hate speech laws is draconian and antithetical to freedom.
Private institutions outlawing hate speech (or anything else they choose) in their privately run forums is not. Most colleges are not private.
Ideas and discussions can easily be expressed without devolving into racist name calling.

Now the move to legally outlaw the public expression of distasteful thoughts is nutty and fascist, imo, and leaves everyone gagged because any use of language and any thought can be offensive to someone.

Yeah, I think he pretty much nailed it.

If you are dismayed by what has happened, please consider:

* Perhaps some of your anger should be directed at the Democrat party brass. They pulled hard for Hillary from day one. They have superdelegates because they don't trust Democrat voters to choose "correctly". All of them swung for Hillary, without even seriously considering any alternative. The brass dismissed Sanders as unelectable and nutty. Oops.

If there were no superdelegates, and the party hadn't consistently propped up Hillary as their highly favored candidate, the primaries would likely have been very different. And my contention is that Trump vs Sanders would have ended in a landslide victory for Sanders. Because Sanders would have appealed to these "blow up the system" people too, AND been much more palatable to people on the fence than Trump.


I think Trump is an idiot blowhard. I think he will make a terrible president (not apocalyptically terrible, but terrible). BUT, I am willing to give him a chance to prove me wrong. I would have been willing to give Hillary a chance if she had won, too.

Outside of the immediate setback that this represents to the Democrat party, I think the future of the party is actually extremely bright -- IF they learn the lesson that they need to from this election. Choose candidates that people like. People that are actually worth voting FOR, rather than propping up someone that you hope will be seen as the "lesser of two evils".

I disagree completely that a militia that follows basic regulations is somehow an agent of and under the direction of the government that makes those regulations, that's nutty and paranoid thinking. "Regulation" does not mean 'operates at the discretion of' or 'under the sole direction of' or even 'operates only in ways the government supports'. It means there are basic rules to follow to be in compliance with the law. Your characterization is silly on it's face, and totally wrong IMO.

In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, some people in regulated (self regulation is not any regulation, BTW) militias (it's members thereafter known as "the people") would have to be allowed to keep and bear arms, but not necessarily let individuals keep them at home, one 'regulation' could easily be that the arms must remain in the firm custody of the militia at all times, not be taken home by members, and not used outside militia activities. Again, I find your characterization silly.

HILARIOUS. You are now saying only NON regulated militias have a right to keep and bear arms, contrary to the exact words of the document?! Now who wants to re-write the law?!? ;-)

"Well regulated" is one of those terms that's left to the Judicial to define since they didn't define it in the document. Sorry. That makes your argument moot.

The word "People" denies the individual. If the rights are only secured for "people", they are not secured for a single "person". Two different words.

Again, I disagree 100% with your entire premise.

"So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'."

No, only in your silly argument have you established that to yourself. I do not concede at all, and disagree with every point of your premise.

I grow weary of this. I get your point. I strongly disagree. Enough said.

Tl;dr - Rational guy debates bat-shit crazy guy and tries to unpick his nuttiness.

To begin with I was all like "yeah yeah, I'm sure you could find any number of nutty supporters for any candidate..." and then Ted walked on stage. Oh. Kay.

Thanks.
Nutty stuff, eh?

Interesting.
That's not how it goes here.
Our system is just plain ridiculous...I'll TRY to explain a little as I understand it.

We start with primaries to choose 'nominees'. Each candidate must either declare a party affiliation (not JUST republican or democrat, but mostly) or run as independent. Each party decides how their primary is set up....so now it gets nutty because the democratic primary in one state may have different rules from the republican primary in that same state, or different from other democratic primaries in other states! WOW.

The idea is for one candidate in each party to 'win' enough delegates (as determined by the primary votes in all states) to elect them the NOMINEE in the party convention this summer, which then puts them on the ballot in November. If no one wins a majority, the whole thing goes insane again and the convention (in differing ways for different parties) decides who their candidate will be. The votes don't just transfer, but they CAN....if say a candidate drops out and tells his delegates to vote for someone else...but they don't HAVE to! They can vote for whomever they like if their candidate has dropped out, but usually follow orders.
All this is just to figure out who will be on the ballot in November! Then we get to do the electoral college thing that's also impossible to comprehend.
I hope that helps and didn't just make it more confusing.
Newt

Wow.
True enough, nothing will likely happen because almost all of them break the law daily....
...but then to devolve into a ridiculous, factless, even actually claimless attack on Clinton (not even sure which Clinton you mean, or what 'hideous' occurrence, or when) while admitting ALL politicians do the same things is just laughable.
If you admit all politicians on both sides share Clinton's faults, why single Clinton out? Why not instead single Sanders out as the most honest and consistent politician in high office, or Warren,...or even go old school Republican with Ron Paul, who may have had some nutty ideas, but was certainly not a liar or a wind sock (turning which ever way the wind blows).

Today, US politicians won't prosecute other politicians that are in their party no matter what their crime, but are willing to prosecute those on the other side of the isle for non-crimes, which is a clear conflict of interest and proof that their prosecutions should not be in their own hands.
As a prime example, I note that there was no censure or any repercussion at all, much less prosecution for Grimm who was caught on camera making hideous death threats directly to a reporter for asking a question he didn't like. (although he was later convicted of other felonies, but not by congress)

I want to react seriously but the "Oh my God! OooooooH!" just ruins it...

Speedy recover to the nutty bastard though. Kinda looked like he was bouncing off concrete when he dived forward there...

I absolutely love how he sums up becoming an adult as "whatever's nutty about me, was nutty about <whoever raised you>..."

That tickles me more than I can describe; living in an era where if you have problems with your childhood you go to a therapist about them.

I thought she was the nutty Monster drink lady but evidently they are two separate loons

I'm sure I'm going to elicit the ire from the sift for saying this but, for all of Beck's usual nuttiness, I actually think he's correct in this instance: we actually do not need an FDA to tell us what "organic" does or does not mean. At this point, the FDA has co-opted the label "organic" such that it doesn't mean anything anymore. In fact, the FDA now prohibits the use of the term "organic" unless it meets their lobby-prone restrictions (thereby driving up the costs). Even the (private!) Berkeley Ecology Center* (which keeps track of these kinds of issues and whose Farmer's Market Manager is actually a good friend of mine) agrees that the government-owned "organic" labeling system means little to nothing anymore.

So, as Beck is suggesting here, having private institutions that you trust can (and in many instances already do) provide you with the information that you'd want/need to get organic food at affordable prices.

For example, the Non-GMO Project (again, a Private organization) that lists and labels GMO-free foods are doing a great job, much better than the FDA care to or even could.

*The Berkeley Ecology Center are a private (!) "ecological think tank" and do not actively publish, but they will give you as much documentation as you'd like, if you request them, of any references, legislation, regulations, etc. and where to find them. If you need documentation, check out their public archive found here.
I'd say that their existence alone helps support Beck's argument here. The Ecology Center can tell you anything you'd want to know from the FDA (and much more that the FDA -- or even the EPA -- wouldn't want you to know) or they can tell you where to go to find out. They don't yet have the resources to conduct studies on their own, so at this point they are more like an "environmental 411" to point you in the right direction to do your own research.

In my opinion, having thousands of these centers throughout the country can do a much better job of tracking these issues than the centralized agencies could ever do.