>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I love to see a person who is passionate about what they believe in. That kind of thing always gets mad props from me. Kudos guy. Golf clap.
But the sad reality is that there are precious few in the teaching profession that have this kind of passion. And even the rare teacher who DOES have the passion has a heckuva time working in a system that is more concerned about the welfare of the teacher's union than the education of students. I could go on for hours about screwed up teachers, regulations, and all the other garbage that cumbers our educational system. It’s all well and good to stick up for the good things, but it ends up ringing pretty hollow when you know there’s a mile of manure beneath the pretty green-grass rhetoric.
For example… I’m no fan of lawyers. But if I was a lawyer, you how I could respond to his last question?
“You what to know what kind of difference I make? I make drunk drivers go to jail when they kill kids, but walk away from the accident. I make teachers who have sex with their students tremble when I’m on the other end of the phone. I make laws that protect widows, the elderly, and orphans. I make companies clean up their messes, and pay the people they hurt with their negligence. I make government officials talk about the laws they try to sneak through the system. I make rapists and murderers go to the electric chair. I stare right in the face at all the scum, sleaze, and filth in society that YOU’RE too scared to even talk about. I hold the powerful accountable. I make the guilty pay. I defend the innocent guy who society never gave a chance. That’s the difference I make, pal…”
See – it isn’t too hard to list all the GOOD things done by a profession while desperately ignoring the slime, crap, and bologna. Golf-clapping his passion, but not impressed with his method.


lawyers don't make laws
defense lawyers make ALOT more than prosecution
and they are just as likely to deny someone their just dues, and protect those in the wrong... probably more likely, because thats where the money is at

trying to put law and education in the same boat has 1 major flaw
there's no money in teaching...
its much more likely to find corruption where there is money
its much more likely to find character where this isn't

I love to see a person who is passionate about what they believe in. That kind of thing always gets mad props from me. Kudos guy. Golf clap.

But the sad reality is that there are precious few in the teaching profession that have this kind of passion. And even the rare teacher who DOES have the passion has a heckuva time working in a system that is more concerned about the welfare of the teacher's union than the education of students. I could go on for hours about screwed up teachers, regulations, and all the other garbage that cumbers our educational system. It’s all well and good to stick up for the good things, but it ends up ringing pretty hollow when you know there’s a mile of manure beneath the pretty green-grass rhetoric.

For example… I’m no fan of lawyers. But if I was a lawyer, you how I could respond to his last question?

“You what to know what kind of difference I make? I make drunk drivers go to jail when they kill kids, but walk away from the accident. I make teachers who have sex with their students tremble when I’m on the other end of the phone. I make laws that protect widows, the elderly, and orphans. I make companies clean up their messes, and pay the people they hurt with their negligence. I make government officials talk about the laws they try to sneak through the system. I make rapists and murderers go to the electric chair. I stare right in the face at all the scum, sleaze, and filth in society that YOU’RE too scared to even talk about. I hold the powerful accountable. I make the guilty pay. I defend the innocent guy who society never gave a chance. That’s the difference I make, pal…”

See – it isn’t too hard to list all the GOOD things done by a profession while desperately ignoring the slime, crap, and bologna. Golf-clapping his passion, but not impressed with his method.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Explain to me. How does ticketing & arresting people for dancing promote safety?
Explain how raiding the houses of War Veterans with para-military police, instead of just serving warrant promotes safety.
Explain allowing an officer to walk free after murdering a helpless older citizen promotes safety.
>> ^bareboards2:
Oh my god, thank you for posting this, blankie!
I had no idea how much of an idiot this guy is. "The police force in America does not exist for public safety." This is so laughably stupid.
Even The Stranger, a bastion of alternative news weeklies and no fan of "the man", vigilant at calling out the cops -- and in Seattle, that is a full time job -- recently ran love letters to the police who are there to help.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/cops-we-have-loved/Content?oid=820

5798


So.. wait.

You're taking her point the wrong way, she never said ticketing and arresting people for dancing promoted public safety, she was making fun of the people who think that cops exist solely to antagonize people.

The rest of your post is irrelevant, the law is in place so that people can't be disruptive in a place of A) Respect, B)Reflection, and C) a tourist spot. The law is there so people aren't disturbed in a public place, not to mention that those that DID protest, did so without a permit.

I'm not taking the time to respond to the other two "Explain to me" questions, because you seem to just be trying to pick a fight unrelated to the topic at hand. Good day, sir.

Explain to me. How does ticketing & arresting people for dancing promote safety?

Explain how raiding the houses of War Veterans with para-military police, instead of just serving warrant promotes safety.

Explain allowing an officer to walk free after murdering a helpless older citizen promotes safety.

>> ^bareboards2:

Oh my god, thank you for posting this, blankie!
I had no idea how much of an idiot this guy is. "The police force in America does not exist for public safety." This is so laughably stupid.
Even The Stranger, a bastion of alternative news weeklies and no fan of "the man", vigilant at calling out the cops -- and in Seattle, that is a full time job -- recently ran love letters to the police who are there to help.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/cops-we-have-loved/Content?oid=820
5798

Oh my god, thank you for posting this, blankie!

I had no idea how much of an idiot this guy is. "The police force in America does not exist for public safety." This is so laughably stupid.

Even The Stranger, a bastion of alternative news weeklies and no fan of "the man", vigilant at calling out the cops -- and in Seattle, that is a full time job -- recently ran love letters to the police who are there to help.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/cops-we-have-loved/Content?oid=8205798



>> ^blankfist:

I've heard about this guy. Mate of mine who was/is crazily into American wrestling told me how his last fight saw him get seriously injured as he really pushed things to the limit.

I'm no fan of the sport but I reckon he's got a few good stories in his book.

I think you're missing the point. The issue is not whether or not he should be criticized/reprimanded for saying what he did. He's a public figure, words matter, and he should be thrown to the wolves for it (though it probably won't happen). The issue is whether or not he actually believes/endorses what was said. You watch the video, listen to his tone and his actions, consider who is audience is, and its pretty obvious that he's just getting carried away in the moment and doesn't realize the full import of what he's saying at that moment. For some reason, politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to forget that cameras and the internet exist.

This is no different from how the Republicans attempted to portray Howard Dean as mentally unhinged after footage of him getting exuberant at that one rally back in the day when in reality he was just getting carried away with the excitement of the moment.

>> ^jimnms:

That Imus guy was just making a joke too, a bad joke, but he got fired for what he said. Huckabee jokes that all Americans should be forced at gunpoint to listen to the brainwashing of David Barton and he's considered presidential material?
If a politician joked that everyone should be forced at gunpoint to listen/read Richard Dawkins, he'd be be hunted down and burned at the stake.
>> ^VoodooV:
I'm no fan of huckabee, but you don't think this is taken just slightly out of context?
Guy was just making a joke...a bad joke, but a joke nonetheless.

>> ^bmacs27:
Title Fail. First of all, obviously he is being tongue in cheek. Second of all, he technically says they should be forced to listen, not believe, or be indoctrinated or anything else. While he terrifies me (mostly because of his electability), he's not the craziest son of a bitch in jesus camp.

>> ^shuac:
Yes, he was just making a bad joke. If you insist on inferring more into it, help yourself.

That Imus guy was just making a joke too, a bad joke, but he got fired for what he said. Huckabee jokes that all Americans should be forced at gunpoint to listen to the brainwashing of David Barton and he's considered presidential material?

If a politician joked that everyone should be forced at gunpoint to listen/read Richard Dawkins, he'd be be hunted down and burned at the stake.

>> ^VoodooV:

I'm no fan of huckabee, but you don't think this is taken just slightly out of context?
Guy was just making a joke...a bad joke, but a joke nonetheless.


>> ^bmacs27:

Title Fail. First of all, obviously he is being tongue in cheek. Second of all, he technically says they should be forced to listen, not believe, or be indoctrinated or anything else. While he terrifies me (mostly because of his electability), he's not the craziest son of a bitch in jesus camp.


>> ^shuac:

Yes, he was just making a bad joke. If you insist on inferring more into it, help yourself.

>> ^VoodooV:

I'm no fan of huckabee, but you don't think this is taken just slightly out of context?
Guy was just making a joke...a bad joke, but a joke nonetheless.


How is this out of context? He isn't talking privately with a few people at a dinner party, he's addressing a group as a public figure and while he's saying this slightly tongue in cheek, it is VERY much in context. He feels forcing people to believe something at gunpoint it is "funny."

For example, if I was to "joke" that Christians should be rounded up into camps and forced to listen to Neil Tyson Degrass at gunpoint until the stupid left their little brains, do you think Mike Huckabee would find it funny?

That is pretty dangerous "humor."

I'm no fan of huckabee, but you don't think this is taken just slightly out of context?

Guy was just making a joke...a bad joke, but a joke nonetheless.

so you admit you're biased

All humans are biased. The way that I know that I'm not biased in a BAD way is that I always give credit where credit is due. I am able to recognize and acknoweldge fairness and balance where it exists. For example...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction

I'm no fan of Stewart as a general rule of thumb. But of all the people commenting about the horrible events last week, he is about the only one who I give any degree of respect. His comments in this vid are some of the ONLY ones where the speaker didn't condemn 'angry rhetoric' out of one side of the mouth, while spewing MORE angry rhetoric out the other side. That's what makes all these pundits, sherriffs, and politicians so loathsome - their sheer, naked hypocrisy.

I'm a fair-minded guy. So when someone on the right says or does something stupid, then I'm more than willing to say it was stupid. This is very different from a guy like Bill Maher. Maher routinely and regularly spews hateful rhetoric. And yet he had the gall and audacity to say that hateful rhetoric "only comes from the right" on Cooper's show yesterday. He refuses to see in himself the very demon that he sees so easily and instantly in others.

Sadly, many of you seem to be caught up in a similar degree of wilfull blindness. The left-wing is literally frothing over with rage, anger, foul rhetoric, threats, violent imagry, as well as actual acts of physical assault by left-wing nutballs. Yet many of you refuse to admit the anger exists, or you try to wave it away, or act like it is insignicant, or it is 'just a joke', or it is perfectly OK as long as it is about 'THAT' guy, or any number of utterly lame excuses. That's how I know you're biased in a BAD way compared to guys like me.

I'll give you a chance - right now - to prove you aren't a hopeless prisoner of your bias...

1. As a major political figure, Sarah Palin saying, "Don't retreat; Reload" is...
(A) Using inappropriate, provocative, & hostile rhetoric
(B) Using strong, but acceptable political speech
(C) Using normal campaign language to make a point

2. As a major political figure, Barak Obama saying, "They bring a knife; we bring a gun" is...
(A) Using inappropriate, provocative, & hostile rhetoric
(B) Using strong, but acceptable political speech
(C) Using normal campaign language to make a point

If your answers were 1. A and 2. C OR if they were 1. C and 2. A ... then you are hopelessly biased in a bad way. If your answers were BC to both - then you're OK. If you wholeheartedly believe Sarah Palin is a horrible hatemonger because her website uses crosshairs, but you couldn't care less the DLC uses bullseyes - then there really is no hope for you.

Yeah... vote republican or you know...
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I'm no fan of drunk drivers, but since when is it OK to threaten people with rape to further your cause? This is wrong on so many levels. Voting up for discussion only. Devolution in action.

And a much worse crime at that. >> ^Fusionaut:

Yes, it's very strange. They are threatening drunk drivers with another crime. >> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm no fan of drunk drivers, but since when is it OK to threaten people with rape to further your cause? This is wrong on so many levels. Voting up for discussion only. Devolution in action.

Yes, it's very strange. They are threatening drunk drivers with another crime. >> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I'm no fan of drunk drivers, but since when is it OK to threaten people with rape to further your cause? This is wrong on so many levels. Voting up for discussion only. Devolution in action.

I'm no fan of drunk drivers, but since when is it OK to threaten people with rape to further your cause? This is wrong on so many levels. Voting up for discussion only. *Devolution in action.