Before we all dogpile on this guy, i think maybe he was talking about people reading books and magazines for entertainment at work? Like 50 shades or something? That is something generally frowned upon in basically any work place
Yes, because if anything, Republican Congressmen have proven to us that they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Especially when it comes to women's issues or anti-intellectualism.
I'm not sure why "deserving the benefit of the doubt" is even a relevant argument here, given what he says. If he had just said "those guys were reading magazines!!!" would it have mattered as much?
yeah because many scientific publications are put out in magazine form and since he doesn't name the things being read in the office it comes across as, stated before, a hollow complaint meant to rile people up and justify cutting funding to one of the most scientifically productive branches of government
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
he says that the decline of education in the US happened once the federal government started getting involved in it
I actually assumed that the DoED was older than it was, and assumed that it was involved in things it wasn't involved with. However, I did know that they don't do education curricula, except for No Child Left Behind, so that guy is still full of shit.
Also, that isn't Fox News. That is a Senator.
Rouzer says he would have voted against No Child Left Behind so that very well may be one of his main beefs with the Department of Education
wanting to dismantle the Department of Education in favor of greater state and local control over education may be a problematic position, but that is not an anti-intellectual position
what he said is "we're paying people six figures to read books all day??", which is very dumb in its own right but not the same thing as "I don't trust no fancy book learnin"
the Examiner article trying to conflate one with the other is sensationalism and bad journalism, much like Fox News, and Geebs' point is that people here seem less likely to call out that sensationalism if it's against a guy they don't like in the first place
what he said is "we're paying people six figures to read books all day??", which is very dumb in its own right but not the same thing as "I don't trust no fancy book learnin"
If we can agree that they were likely reading journals or studies, the likelihood is that it meant something more along the lines of "I don't understand what they're doing and I'm not going to find out", something that is just as dangerous in the hands of someone with power.
what he said is "we're paying people six figures to read books all day??", which is very dumb in its own right but not the same thing as "I don't trust no fancy book learnin"
If we can agree that they were likely reading journals or studies, the likelihood is that it meant something more along the lines of "I don't understand what they're doing and I'm not going to find out", something that is just as dangerous in the hands of someone with power.
Before we all dogpile on this guy, i think maybe he was talking about people reading books and magazines for entertainment at work? Like 50 shades or something? That is something generally frowned upon in basically any work place
Yes, because if anything, Republican Congressmen have proven to us that they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Especially when it comes to women's issues or anti-intellectualism.
I'm not sure why "deserving the benefit of the doubt" is even a relevant argument here, given what he says. If he had just said "those guys were reading magazines!!!" would it have mattered as much?
Aren't most journals printed on glossy?
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Kodos
Rorus, could we update Mitt's nick to Money Boo Boo?
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Ross Perot
We should have a talent portion of the presidential debates. Obama could sing, Biden can show everyone how to make pruno...
The GOP seems hell-bent on shitting on just about any socio-economic group these days. As a veteran, this will probably have interesting implications for how many of my veteran friends will vote. Almost all of them are staunch Romney supporters (or at least Obama haters), and I have to wonder if at least a few might reconsider that position between now and election day. In any case, blocking a $1 billion jobs bill under the auspices of budget control seems pretty dumb in an election year.
The GOP seems hell-bent on shitting on just about any socio-economic group these days. As a veteran, this will probably have interesting implications for how many of my veteran friends will vote. Almost all of them are staunch Romney supporters (or at least Obama haters), and I have to wonder if at least a few might reconsider that position between now and election day. In any case, blocking a $1 billion jobs bill under the auspices of budget control seems pretty dumb in an election year.
Worrying about budget control during a recession is like wondering if you should give a starving man food for fear that he might not have any a few years down the road. It's irrelevant if he starves now.
Admittedly, you should cut taxes (which IS spending, granted), but we decided to lower taxes during the bubbly boom of the early 2000s. Our taxes are also goofy in general.
giving people jobs is a pretty decent thing to spend it on
0
Options
Favlaudjust straight up awfulRegistered Userregular
what, you think we just have jobs waiting, tal? the reason there's so many people out of work is because we've reached the logical extreme of every industry, we have a gross surplus of top-notch infrastructure and our standard of living is beyond the comprehension of anyone
create jobs, don't be absurd
+1
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
I'm hoping we don't have another white president for another five terms or so. Around the tenth year of a person of color in the White House, we can expect to see the racists just start dying of strokes or mass suicides will break out.
Although, besides the obvious "attempt on a person's life" part, the shitty thing would be how the paranoid fringe of the right would spin it. Once they groused about Obama being killed, I got past the point of thinking there isn't anything they won't throw a tantrum over.
I'm thinking they'd say Obama intentionally had himself shot to get some political capital to make gay Muslim marriage legal.
Although, besides the obvious "attempt on a person's life" part, the shitty thing would be how the paranoid fringe of the right would spin it. Once they groused about Obama being killed, I got past the point of thinking there isn't anything they won't throw a tantrum over.
I'm thinking they'd say Obama intentionally had himself shot to get some political capital to make gay Muslim marriage legal.
The term is "false flag operation" and when literally anything bad happens all the crazies talk about Obama orchestrating it to take away our guns.
+1
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
Although, besides the obvious "attempt on a person's life" part, the shitty thing would be how the paranoid fringe of the right would spin it. Once they groused about Obama being killed, I got past the point of thinking there isn't anything they won't throw a tantrum over.
I'm thinking they'd say Obama intentionally had himself shot to get some political capital to make gay Muslim marriage legal.
The term is "false flag operation" and when literally anything bad happens all the crazies talk about Obama orchestrating it to take away our guns.
My roommate watches Youtube videos about BARRY SOETORO, THE WORLD'S MOST EVIL NI MAN.
I went to a Seven Eleven today for an icee but the machine said that the cherry flavor part was broken. I believe that the owner of the store has purposefully broken the machine in a FALSE FLAG OPERATION in order to say that no-one is buying cherry icees and then get the flavor replaced with something stupid like Coke.
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
Although, besides the obvious "attempt on a person's life" part, the shitty thing would be how the paranoid fringe of the right would spin it. Once they groused about Obama being killed, I got past the point of thinking there isn't anything they won't throw a tantrum over.
I'm thinking they'd say Obama intentionally had himself shot to get some political capital to make gay Muslim marriage legal.
The term is "false flag operation" and when literally anything bad happens all the crazies talk about Obama orchestrating it to take away our guns.
or when anything good (to them) happens, like obama not pursuing any gun legislation at all
My cat caught and killed a small lizard today. As long as you don't listen to what the mainstream media propaganda says, it's obvious that this is a FALSE FLAG OPERATION by the lizard conglomerate to garner sympathy and get me to be mad with my cat.
Posts
yeah because many scientific publications are put out in magazine form and since he doesn't name the things being read in the office it comes across as, stated before, a hollow complaint meant to rile people up and justify cutting funding to one of the most scientifically productive branches of government
he was also at the very bottom of his West Point graduating class so it's not like nobody recognized the fact that he was awful
I really, really don't think it's unfair
why is that
does David Rouzer have a history of outright lying?
he's a politician
everything he says is suspect
Rouzer says he would have voted against No Child Left Behind so that very well may be one of his main beefs with the Department of Education
wanting to dismantle the Department of Education in favor of greater state and local control over education may be a problematic position, but that is not an anti-intellectual position
what he said is "we're paying people six figures to read books all day??", which is very dumb in its own right but not the same thing as "I don't trust no fancy book learnin"
the Examiner article trying to conflate one with the other is sensationalism and bad journalism, much like Fox News, and Geebs' point is that people here seem less likely to call out that sensationalism if it's against a guy they don't like in the first place
If we can agree that they were likely reading journals or studies, the likelihood is that it meant something more along the lines of "I don't understand what they're doing and I'm not going to find out", something that is just as dangerous in the hands of someone with power.
absolutely
Aren't most journals printed on glossy?
And then have them all deported six hours before payday. Tadaaaaaaa!
'I just made more money than the average person makes in two weeks'
8-)
The GOP seems hell-bent on shitting on just about any socio-economic group these days. As a veteran, this will probably have interesting implications for how many of my veteran friends will vote. Almost all of them are staunch Romney supporters (or at least Obama haters), and I have to wonder if at least a few might reconsider that position between now and election day. In any case, blocking a $1 billion jobs bill under the auspices of budget control seems pretty dumb in an election year.
Admittedly, you should cut taxes (which IS spending, granted), but we decided to lower taxes during the bubbly boom of the early 2000s. Our taxes are also goofy in general.
Was this Al Gore's plan all along?
giving people jobs is a pretty decent thing to spend it on
create jobs, don't be absurd
Right on top of the old one.
Build 'em straight to the sky.
I voted for Kodos
A win for us either way.
I am very surprised no one's actually shot at Obama by now
Cannot echo this enough
Especially since I seem to see a lot less pro-Romney people and much more anti-Obama folks
Although, besides the obvious "attempt on a person's life" part, the shitty thing would be how the paranoid fringe of the right would spin it. Once they groused about Obama being killed, I got past the point of thinking there isn't anything they won't throw a tantrum over.
I'm thinking they'd say Obama intentionally had himself shot to get some political capital to make gay Muslim marriage legal.
but if somebody shot Obama I feel like he'd Roosevelt it
The term is "false flag operation" and when literally anything bad happens all the crazies talk about Obama orchestrating it to take away our guns.
Quite a few have tried. They didn't come close, thankfully.
or when anything good (to them) happens, like obama not pursuing any gun legislation at all
it's like you can't please 'em ever!