Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (698596)	2/12/2013 11:56:42 AM
From: jlallen	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1575883

Nope.....not a figment of your imagination but also not a call for guns for all......the two are not exclusive.

To: Alighieri who wrote (698596)	2/12/2013 12:21:31 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575883

Two separate issues. Why equivocate? ... that is another* misdirection from the 'get conservatives' nags. tsk* Not to mention your terminology is misleading: So the call for arming students and staff on university campuses, by conservative politicians, is a figment of my imagination? Yes you imagined something: There is a huge difference between your terminology a "call for arming students and staff" (which suggest putting arms in the hands of people who would not be armed otherwise) vs allowing people who are licensed gun owners to carry arms for personal protection. This proposal does not suggest that we begin arming anyone. Note the word "allow" Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, along with 13 additional Republican authors filed Senate Bill 182 on Thursday that would allow licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on campuses and other locations associated with higher education. By the way, isn't it like sex ed where you claim they are going to be engaging in lascivious behavior anyway so let's give them pills and condoms for their personal protection? Well, we know they are pack'n heat anyway so let them have personal protection as a CHOICE.

To: Alighieri who wrote (698596)	2/12/2013 12:25:15 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575883

This one is really cracking me up. Rove on Judd: 'We are making fun of her' By Steve Benen - Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:21 AM EST Getty Images Last week, apropos of nothing, Karl Rove's operation, American Crossroads, rolled out an attack video targeting actor Ashley Judd. Rove, fearing Judd may run against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2014, apparently isn't done. "We are making fun of her," Rove told Fox News. "She is way far out on the left wing of the Democratic Party, which is not very far out left in Kentucky." "She's going to get to know that she's not going to be able to wait until the screenwriters from California and producers make her look good and prepare the ads and give her lots of lines to memorize so that she can handle these things," Rove said. Soon after, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) added, "When I heard Ashley Judd might run for office I thought maybe it was Parliament since she lives in Scotland half the year." The Republican senator added, "Ashley Judd's a famous actress. She's an attractive woman, presents herself well and from what I understand is articulate. But the thing is, she doesn't really represent Kentucky." At this point, I have no idea if Judd intends to seek elected office or whether she'd fare well as a candidate if she ran. But when was the last time Republicans freaked out at this level about an inexperienced candidate Democrat in a "red" state more than 20 months before an election cycle? Post script: I'd be remiss if I didn't laugh a bit at Rand Paul's concerns about Senate candidates who "represent Kentucky." I remember writing a piece in August 2010 about Paul, a self-accredited ophthalmologist who seemed to have almost no familiarity with the basics of the state he was running in. But in the same interview, Paul said something else of interest. A reporter asked that summer about the significance of Harlan County, Kentucky, which seemed like a fairly easy question for anyone, even those with only passing familiarity with the state. "I don't know," the then-candidate replied. Noting that the town of Hazard is nearby, Paul added, "It's famous for, like, The Dukes of Hazzard." When an aide tries to steer him towards the truth -- Harlan County was home to generations of deadly labor disputes -- Paul ignores him, and says, "Maybe the feuding." The Lexington Herald-Leader's Larry Dale Keeling noted at the time that Rand Paul "seems to know dangerously little" about Kentucky. People who "live" somewhere for 17 years will pick up a little knowledge through osmosis even if they don't bother to get out and learn about their surroundings. A person who merely "resides" somewhere is more like the little knickknack that "resides" in the bric-a-brac case hanging on the wall. A person who has "lived" in Kentucky for 17 years might know how "Bloody Harlan" got its name and that The Dukes of Hazzard was set in the fictional Hazzard (two Z's) County, Georgia, not the Kentucky city of Hazard (one Z). A person who has "lived" in Kentucky for 17 years might know the community of Fancy Farm is in a dry county and the picnic put on annually by the old folks of St. Jerome Parish is a family affair where no one has to worry about having beer or anything else thrown at them. Those are just a few items someone who has lived here for several years might know. But there are some things a person who has lived in this state for any amount of time can't help but know. Adding insult to injury, Paul also said Eastern Kentucky's drug problem is not "a real pressing issue," despite the fact that it's been ravaged by an epidemic. Keeling explained, "Only someone who is totally clueless would say that." And now Rand Paul feels confident talking about who is and is not capable of "representing Kentucky"? Seriously?