GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
I'm kind of with Thanatos, actually, on the general protocol. I'm all too willing to cut one some slack upon their death, but if one is just absolutely totally disgusting in life, I can't bring myself to cry crocodile tears over it.
I remember having a similar reaction when Carl Pohlad, owner of the Twins, died. Here was a guy who made a fair bit of his fortune foreclosing on farms during the Depression and was actively working to get the team contracted for a couple extra bucks, which is a level of ripping the heart out of a community far beyond even relocation. (At least then you know the team still exists somewhere.) I couldn't find anything nice to say about him. So I didn't. When you work that tirelessly to suck every last dollar out of your community without giving a thing in return, without any concern for the lives of those around you... sorry.
Ted... at least with the pork he tried to put something back into his community. So he's got that. Not much else... but that.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I got a degree in networking, make a hobby out of it, and would like to make a career out of it. I still have trouble remembering exactly what net neutrality is without checking the wiki.
He shouldn't have been on that committee, but his gibbering mess of a speech on it is about as much as can be expected out of any person, much less someone who was alive before Alaska was a state.
But, see, he was the chair of the committee. When you are the chairman of a committee in the United States Senate there is no fucking excuse for not knowing what you're talking about. I don't care how old you are. If you can't handle doing your goddamn job, give it to someone who can.
Read. Understand. Respond.
This is the order conversations in D&D need to happen in, but it gets cast aside to be bitchy too often.
So, just to check: are you saying that no one is capable of understanding network neutrality (even if it's an incredibly important part of their job), that Ted Stevens didn't have a constitutional duty to step aside if he was too old and ignorant to understand it, or that sitting on a committee and making incredibly important decisions to regulate something you really, really don't understand isn't all that bad?
I wasn't saying anything about his role in government. The line I bolded excludes his governmental role from my comment.
I'm kind of with Thanatos, actually, on the general protocol. I'm all too willing to cut one some slack upon their death, but if one is just absolutely totally disgusting in life, I can't bring myself to cry crocodile tears over it.
I remember having a similar reaction when Carl Pohlad, owner of the Twins, died. Here was a guy who made a fair bit of his fortune foreclosing on farms during the Depression and was actively working to get the team contracted for a couple extra bucks, which is a level of ripping the heart out of a community far beyond even relocation. (At least then you know the team still exists somewhere.) I couldn't find anything nice to say about him. So I didn't. When you work that tirelessly to suck every last dollar out of your community without giving a thing in return, without any concern for the lives of those around you... sorry.
Ted... at least with the pork he tried to put something back into his community. So he's got that. Not much else... but that.
Eh, his record as a senator is spotty, in the end he was a bitter old codger that represented all that's wrong with the senate these days, and yeah, unless you're a relative of the guy, or in his circle of friends, you hardly owe him anything. Yeah it's in poor taste to say good riddance, but whatever. Same kind of scenario with Ted Kennedy's death too. I can't remember the name of the article anymore, but I remember reading a great "fuck you" obituary for Reagan somewhere on the net.
I got a degree in networking, make a hobby out of it, and would like to make a career out of it. I still have trouble remembering exactly what net neutrality is without checking the wiki.
He shouldn't have been on that committee, but his gibbering mess of a speech on it is about as much as can be expected out of any person, much less someone who was alive before Alaska was a state.
But, see, he was the chair of the committee. When you are the chairman of a committee in the United States Senate there is no fucking excuse for not knowing what you're talking about. I don't care how old you are. If you can't handle doing your goddamn job, give it to someone who can.
Read. Understand. Respond.
This is the order conversations in D&D need to happen in, but it gets cast aside to be bitchy too often.
So, just to check: are you saying that no one is capable of understanding network neutrality (even if it's an incredibly important part of their job), that Ted Stevens didn't have a constitutional duty to step aside if he was too old and ignorant to understand it, or that sitting on a committee and making incredibly important decisions to regulate something you really, really don't understand isn't all that bad?
I wasn't saying anything about his role in government. The line I bolded excludes his governmental role from my comment.
Except you can't exclude his governmental role from this discussion, because he said this idiotic things as a part of his job. It's like a civics teacher making an incoherent speech about income tax structure in class, and then saying "Okay, he shouldn't have been teaching that subject, but does anyone really get how taxes work?".
Is Ted Stevens dead? Or are we just wishing he is pending confirmation?
Well, his family has confirmed that he's dead.
Though, that might just be wishful thinking on their part.
That's cruel even for you.
Well, as far as poor taste jokes go it was actually kinda funny.
BUT.
Nobody should be happy someone else has died. I've had to bite my tongue in cheering for the recently deceased, I know it's not easy. But it's the best thing you can do. Because chances are, the person you're cheering the death of would do the same for others. By not cheering, you're not putting yourself at their level and proving you're a better person.
That said, I will not miss Ted Stevens. He was a terrible politician and I have strong disagreements with what he did throughout. However, I send my prayers to his family - he was, afterall, a human, and had people that cared about him.
Henroid on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I got a degree in networking, make a hobby out of it, and would like to make a career out of it. I still have trouble remembering exactly what net neutrality is without checking the wiki.
He shouldn't have been on that committee, but his gibbering mess of a speech on it is about as much as can be expected out of any person, much less someone who was alive before Alaska was a state.
But, see, he was the chair of the committee. When you are the chairman of a committee in the United States Senate there is no fucking excuse for not knowing what you're talking about. I don't care how old you are. If you can't handle doing your goddamn job, give it to someone who can.
Read. Understand. Respond.
This is the order conversations in D&D need to happen in, but it gets cast aside to be bitchy too often.
So, just to check: are you saying that no one is capable of understanding network neutrality (even if it's an incredibly important part of their job), that Ted Stevens didn't have a constitutional duty to step aside if he was too old and ignorant to understand it, or that sitting on a committee and making incredibly important decisions to regulate something you really, really don't understand isn't all that bad?
I wasn't saying anything about his role in government. The line I bolded excludes his governmental role from my comment.
Except you can't exclude his governmental role from this discussion, because he said this idiotic things as a part of his job. It's like a physics teacher making an incoherent speech about magnetization in class, and then saying "Okay, he shouldn't have been teaching that subject, but does anyone really get how fucking magnets work?".
I got a degree in networking, make a hobby out of it, and would like to make a career out of it. I still have trouble remembering exactly what net neutrality is without checking the wiki.
He shouldn't have been on that committee, but his gibbering mess of a speech on it is about as much as can be expected out of any person, much less someone who was alive before Alaska was a state.
But, see, he was the chair of the committee. When you are the chairman of a committee in the United States Senate there is no fucking excuse for not knowing what you're talking about. I don't care how old you are. If you can't handle doing your goddamn job, give it to someone who can.
Read. Understand. Respond.
This is the order conversations in D&D need to happen in, but it gets cast aside to be bitchy too often.
So, just to check: are you saying that no one is capable of understanding network neutrality (even if it's an incredibly important part of their job), that Ted Stevens didn't have a constitutional duty to step aside if he was too old and ignorant to understand it, or that sitting on a committee and making incredibly important decisions to regulate something you really, really don't understand isn't all that bad?
I wasn't saying anything about his role in government. The line I bolded excludes his governmental role from my comment.
Except you can't exclude his governmental role from this discussion, because he said this idiotic things as a part of his job. It's like a civics teacher making an incoherent speech about income tax structure in class, and then saying "Okay, he shouldn't have been teaching that subject, but does anyone really get how taxes work?".
For a time I believed that the average reading ability in this forum was pretty high, so I avoided being painfully explicit. Spending one sentence saying it was dumb that he was on that committee, then everything else on his old personness should have been all that was required. I was saying it's really complex stuff, so all the complaints specifically about his gibbering speech were kind of off-base.
Complaints about how someone who doesn't get it being on that committee are a wholly separate issue when discussed as a pair.
Is it clear now? Or do I need to make an illustration?
It's like a civics teacher making an incoherent speech about income tax structure in class, and then saying "Okay, he shouldn't have been teaching that subject, but does anyone really get how taxes work?".
Are you saying that Ted Stevens was a political Juggalo?
Oh, so if you're making a speech on a really complicated subject, it's okay if you have no idea what you're talking about and just spout gibberish? Bullshit.
I got a degree in networking, make a hobby out of it, and would like to make a career out of it. I still have trouble remembering exactly what net neutrality is without checking the wiki.
He shouldn't have been on that committee, but his gibbering mess of a speech on it is about as much as can be expected out of any person, much less someone who was alive before Alaska was a state.
But, see, he was the chair of the committee. When you are the chairman of a committee in the United States Senate there is no fucking excuse for not knowing what you're talking about. I don't care how old you are. If you can't handle doing your goddamn job, give it to someone who can.
Read. Understand. Respond.
This is the order conversations in D&D need to happen in, but it gets cast aside to be bitchy too often.
So, just to check: are you saying that no one is capable of understanding network neutrality (even if it's an incredibly important part of their job), that Ted Stevens didn't have a constitutional duty to step aside if he was too old and ignorant to understand it, or that sitting on a committee and making incredibly important decisions to regulate something you really, really don't understand isn't all that bad?
I wasn't saying anything about his role in government. The line I bolded excludes his governmental role from my comment.
Except you can't exclude his governmental role from this discussion, because he said this idiotic things as a part of his job. It's like a civics teacher making an incoherent speech about income tax structure in class, and then saying "Okay, he shouldn't have been teaching that subject, but does anyone really get how taxes work?".
For a time I believed that the average reading ability in this forum was pretty high, so I avoided being painfully explicit. Spending one sentence saying it was dumb that he was on that committee, then everything else on his old personness should have been all that was required. I was saying it's really complex stuff, so all the complaints specifically about his gibbering speech were kind of off-base.
Complaints about how someone who doesn't get it being on that committee are a wholly separate issue when discussed as a pair.
Is it clear now? Or do I need to make an illustration?
It isn't a difficult concept, you're just completely wrong. Here's the wrong part:
He shouldn't have been on that committee, but his gibbering mess of a speech on it is about as much as can be expected out of any person, much less someone who was alive before Alaska was a state.
Some of us expect more than rambling nonsense from our Senators.
Really, I could clarify so you guys understand what I'm saying. So clear. But when the first response is confrontational bullshit, absent any indication that it might be warranted, what's the point in even trying?
I've got no incentive to try to work toward understanding when it starts with anger and goes downhill from there.
Really, I could clarify so you guys understand what I'm saying. So clear. But when the first response is confrontational bullshit, absent any indication that it might be warranted, what's the point in even trying?
I've got no incentive to try to work toward understanding when it starts with anger and goes downhill from there.
i'm not sure who's angry at you. but it seems silly to evaluate a senator without looking at his senatorial performance.
Nobody should be happy someone else has died. I've had to bite my tongue in cheering for the recently deceased, I know it's not easy. But it's the best thing you can do. Because chances are, the person you're cheering the death of would do the same for others. By not cheering, you're not putting yourself at their level and proving you're a better person.
That said, I will not miss Ted Stevens. He was a terrible politician and I have strong disagreements with what he did throughout. However, I send my prayers to his family - he was, afterall, a human, and had people that cared about him.
I don't really agree.
I mean when Res got shot at while taking a piss, I was pretty glad the guys shooting at him were dead. If someone killed someone trying to rape or murder them, I'd be glad the attacker was dead. If a crime lord who directed the murder of others died, I'd be glad they were dead. If a brutal dictator who had ruled his country through tyrannical methods died, I'd be glad he was dead.
What you're really arguing IMO is whether Ted Stevens was bad enough to warrant being glad he's dead. I perhaps wouldn't go quite that far since he'd already been removed from power, but its a borderline thing at most. And I certainly wouldn't pretend to be sad about it.
Really, I could clarify so you guys understand what I'm saying. So clear. But when the first response is confrontational bullshit, absent any indication that it might be warranted, what's the point in even trying?
I've got no incentive to try to work toward understanding when it starts with anger and goes downhill from there.
I would like to hear the clarifying statement.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Nobody should be happy someone else has died. I've had to bite my tongue in cheering for the recently deceased, I know it's not easy. But it's the best thing you can do. Because chances are, the person you're cheering the death of would do the same for others. By not cheering, you're not putting yourself at their level and proving you're a better person.
That said, I will not miss Ted Stevens. He was a terrible politician and I have strong disagreements with what he did throughout. However, I send my prayers to his family - he was, afterall, a human, and had people that cared about him.
I don't really agree.
I mean when Res got shot at while taking a piss, I was pretty glad the guys shooting at him were dead. If someone killed someone trying to rape or murder them, I'd be glad the attacker was dead. If a crime lord who directed the murder of others died, I'd be glad they were dead. If a brutal dictator who had ruled his country through tyrannical methods died, I'd be glad he was dead.
What you're really arguing IMO is whether Ted Stevens was bad enough to warrant being glad he's dead. I perhaps wouldn't go quite that far since he'd already been removed from power, but its a borderline thing at most. And I certainly wouldn't pretend to be sad about it.
When I read about Res getting shot at while taking a piss, I was pretty glad he came out of it alive and unharmed.
I had more to say on this but I just cleared it out because my religious views / practices started to come into play and I don't want to start yet another religion thread.
Really, I could clarify so you guys understand what I'm saying. So clear. But when the first response is confrontational bullshit, absent any indication that it might be warranted, what's the point in even trying?
I've got no incentive to try to work toward understanding when it starts with anger and goes downhill from there.
I would like to hear the clarifying statement.
I wonder if he even has one, it's pretty ridiculous to indicate that you could win an argument, but you're not going to because X. (X being some flimsy excuse to bail out of the argument.)
That said, Ted did catch a lot of undue flak for his little speech, in the end the analogy worked, it was just delivered very poorly and like a complete amateur. He came off like a clueless old codger stereotype screaming for kids to get off his lawn, and when you're the head of the very committee that deals with net neutrality, you should damn well be better informed before you go off on a rant.
Had a terrifying thought: what if he had won? Open Alaskan Senate seat.
...There's an open seat this November anyway. Murkowski(our Republican senator) is up for reelection this year.
Besides, Sean Parnell would just have appointed a generic Republican, which is how half of their Senators got the job anyway.
The people of Alaska took that nifty power away from the Governor when Frank Murkowski, formerly the Senator accross from Stevens, won the Governorship and then appointed Lisa Murkowski, his own daughter, into the Senate position he just vacated.
Had a terrifying thought: what if he had won? Open Alaskan Senate seat.
...There's an open seat this November anyway. Murkowski(our Republican senator) is up for reelection this year.
That's not an open seat. An open seat. You know, for the Wasilla Wingnut.
She can't sell herself for millions if she's a Senator. She'd had stayed a Governor if she gave a shit about politics. She doesn't: she just wants to get rich. Well, richER now.
Had a terrifying thought: what if he had won? Open Alaskan Senate seat.
...There's an open seat this November anyway. Murkowski(our Republican senator) is up for reelection this year.
That's not an open seat. An open seat. You know, for the Wasilla Wingnut.
She can't sell herself for millions if she's a Senator. She'd had stayed a Governor if she gave a shit about politics. She doesn't: she just wants to get rich. Well, richER now.
Same reason Neal Abercrombie resigned. You can't campaign if you have to travel thousands of miles constantly.
I don't have any qualms about my opinions of Stevens: he was an awful senator, probably an awful human being, and he indirectly sealed his own fate by fiddling with the justice system and finding himself on an aircraft rather than in a jail cell. If you don't call his demise poetic justice in that sense, then I don't know what you could call poetic justice.
That said, we gain nothing for the man's death (the stolen monies remain stolen, the terrible legislative moves and inane ramblings remain as they were), and my understanding is that a 13 year old had to spend the night next to the corpse of his own father as well as the dead senator's through the night. I think that news should rob anyone of any satisfaction that they might otherwise take from the crash. I mean, hooray - we now have a terrible traumatized young man who's childhood has just been shattered.
This is why I always hope that these people go the way Falwell went, and I get mad whenever people wish that (say) Bush had crashed & died in one of his helicopter rides.
Nobody should be happy someone else has died. I've had to bite my tongue in cheering for the recently deceased, I know it's not easy. But it's the best thing you can do. Because chances are, the person you're cheering the death of would do the same for others. By not cheering, you're not putting yourself at their level and proving you're a better person.
This is my rule of thumb, but I allow for exceptions to this rule in the case where the victim's own grotesquely bloated ego is what ultimately kills them, and where innocent people weren't caught-up in whatever accident.
For example, I toasted to the death of Lech Kaczynski (first, because the blithering idiot's own arrogance clearly came even before his own self of self-preservation; second, because his theocratic policies were turning Poland into an ugly police state). Unfortunately, his seat was taken over by his sibling, who's not much better than him - but the world really did gain tangible benefit from the loss of Lech & the fanatical cabinet members that died with him when they demanded that their plane be landed at Smolensk despite heavy fog and an ATC advisory to divert to Minsk.
I don't have any qualms about my opinions of Stevens: he was an awful senator, probably an awful human being, and he indirectly sealed his own fate by fiddling with the justice system and finding himself on an aircraft rather than in a jail cell. If you don't call his demise poetic justice in that sense, then I don't know what you could call poetic justice.
Nitpick: he didn't fiddle with the justice system. He was found guilty, and Holder threw out the verdict based on prosecutorial malfeasance. Stevens didn't have any say in that. I mean, he did manage to have the trial held earlier than the judge wanted, but I don't think that's particularly relevant in this regard.
I don't have any qualms about my opinions of Stevens: he was an awful senator, probably an awful human being, and he indirectly sealed his own fate by fiddling with the justice system and finding himself on an aircraft rather than in a jail cell. If you don't call his demise poetic justice in that sense, then I don't know what you could call poetic justice.
Nitpick: he didn't fiddle with the justice system. He was found guilty, and Holder threw out the verdict based on prosecutorial malfeasance. Stevens didn't have any say in that. I mean, he did manage to have the trial held earlier than the judge wanted, but I don't think that's particularly relevant in this regard.
Yeah, this is a good point, Holder made an example of the prosecutors in that case because they violated ethical conduct codes left and right. But by that point the damage was done anyway and he had lost his seat.
Posts
Though, that might just be wishful thinking on their part.
That's cruel even for you.
I remember having a similar reaction when Carl Pohlad, owner of the Twins, died. Here was a guy who made a fair bit of his fortune foreclosing on farms during the Depression and was actively working to get the team contracted for a couple extra bucks, which is a level of ripping the heart out of a community far beyond even relocation. (At least then you know the team still exists somewhere.) I couldn't find anything nice to say about him. So I didn't. When you work that tirelessly to suck every last dollar out of your community without giving a thing in return, without any concern for the lives of those around you... sorry.
Ted... at least with the pork he tried to put something back into his community. So he's got that. Not much else... but that.
I wasn't saying anything about his role in government. The line I bolded excludes his governmental role from my comment.
Eh, his record as a senator is spotty, in the end he was a bitter old codger that represented all that's wrong with the senate these days, and yeah, unless you're a relative of the guy, or in his circle of friends, you hardly owe him anything. Yeah it's in poor taste to say good riddance, but whatever. Same kind of scenario with Ted Kennedy's death too. I can't remember the name of the article anymore, but I remember reading a great "fuck you" obituary for Reagan somewhere on the net.
Well, as far as poor taste jokes go it was actually kinda funny.
BUT.
Nobody should be happy someone else has died. I've had to bite my tongue in cheering for the recently deceased, I know it's not easy. But it's the best thing you can do. Because chances are, the person you're cheering the death of would do the same for others. By not cheering, you're not putting yourself at their level and proving you're a better person.
That said, I will not miss Ted Stevens. He was a terrible politician and I have strong disagreements with what he did throughout. However, I send my prayers to his family - he was, afterall, a human, and had people that cared about him.
Fixed
For a time I believed that the average reading ability in this forum was pretty high, so I avoided being painfully explicit. Spending one sentence saying it was dumb that he was on that committee, then everything else on his old personness should have been all that was required. I was saying it's really complex stuff, so all the complaints specifically about his gibbering speech were kind of off-base.
Complaints about how someone who doesn't get it being on that committee are a wholly separate issue when discussed as a pair.
Is it clear now? Or do I need to make an illustration?
Are you saying that Ted Stevens was a political Juggalo?
awesome.
It isn't a difficult concept, you're just completely wrong. Here's the wrong part:
Some of us expect more than rambling nonsense from our Senators.
I've got no incentive to try to work toward understanding when it starts with anger and goes downhill from there.
i'm not sure who's angry at you. but it seems silly to evaluate a senator without looking at his senatorial performance.
its sorta... his whole thing...
I don't really agree.
I mean when Res got shot at while taking a piss, I was pretty glad the guys shooting at him were dead. If someone killed someone trying to rape or murder them, I'd be glad the attacker was dead. If a crime lord who directed the murder of others died, I'd be glad they were dead. If a brutal dictator who had ruled his country through tyrannical methods died, I'd be glad he was dead.
What you're really arguing IMO is whether Ted Stevens was bad enough to warrant being glad he's dead. I perhaps wouldn't go quite that far since he'd already been removed from power, but its a borderline thing at most. And I certainly wouldn't pretend to be sad about it.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I would like to hear the clarifying statement.
When I read about Res getting shot at while taking a piss, I was pretty glad he came out of it alive and unharmed.
I had more to say on this but I just cleared it out because my religious views / practices started to come into play and I don't want to start yet another religion thread.
I wonder if he even has one, it's pretty ridiculous to indicate that you could win an argument, but you're not going to because X. (X being some flimsy excuse to bail out of the argument.)
That said, Ted did catch a lot of undue flak for his little speech, in the end the analogy worked, it was just delivered very poorly and like a complete amateur. He came off like a clueless old codger stereotype screaming for kids to get off his lawn, and when you're the head of the very committee that deals with net neutrality, you should damn well be better informed before you go off on a rant.
...There's an open seat this November anyway. Murkowski(our Republican senator) is up for reelection this year.
Besides, Sean Parnell would just have appointed a generic Republican, which is how half of their Senators got the job anyway.
The people of Alaska took that nifty power away from the Governor when Frank Murkowski, formerly the Senator accross from Stevens, won the Governorship and then appointed Lisa Murkowski, his own daughter, into the Senate position he just vacated.
That one went over REAL well with Alaskans.
That's not an open seat. An open seat. You know, for the Wasilla Wingnut.
She can't sell herself for millions if she's a Senator. She'd had stayed a Governor if she gave a shit about politics. She doesn't: she just wants to get rich. Well, richER now.
Same reason Neal Abercrombie resigned. You can't campaign if you have to travel thousands of miles constantly.
Didn't stop Ted Stevens.
Yeah, Alaskans actually liked Stevens. They're all kind of angry at Palin right now. She was supposed to be "different."
That said, we gain nothing for the man's death (the stolen monies remain stolen, the terrible legislative moves and inane ramblings remain as they were), and my understanding is that a 13 year old had to spend the night next to the corpse of his own father as well as the dead senator's through the night. I think that news should rob anyone of any satisfaction that they might otherwise take from the crash. I mean, hooray - we now have a terrible traumatized young man who's childhood has just been shattered.
This is why I always hope that these people go the way Falwell went, and I get mad whenever people wish that (say) Bush had crashed & died in one of his helicopter rides.
This is my rule of thumb, but I allow for exceptions to this rule in the case where the victim's own grotesquely bloated ego is what ultimately kills them, and where innocent people weren't caught-up in whatever accident.
For example, I toasted to the death of Lech Kaczynski (first, because the blithering idiot's own arrogance clearly came even before his own self of self-preservation; second, because his theocratic policies were turning Poland into an ugly police state). Unfortunately, his seat was taken over by his sibling, who's not much better than him - but the world really did gain tangible benefit from the loss of Lech & the fanatical cabinet members that died with him when they demanded that their plane be landed at Smolensk despite heavy fog and an ATC advisory to divert to Minsk.
Yeah, this is a good point, Holder made an example of the prosecutors in that case because they violated ethical conduct codes left and right. But by that point the damage was done anyway and he had lost his seat.
I find it infinitely more likely that Holder threw out the verdict based on a fattening of his wallet, but whatever.