clevomon's Comments (155)

“Agreed. And this is another case where the headline is mildly misleading. I've noticed some comments on this page acting as if the school would not let them graduate if their BMI was over 30. That's not what it is! If it's over 30, you have to take a phys ed class!”

“I wouldn't worry too much. As you're pointing out, our standards for reading and writing are pathetic in most states. Any BMI requirements, even if the gov't was doing it, which they aren't in this case, would probably be not have much impact whatsoever.

Not saying whether it's a good idea or not there. I don't think it is because they're giving a standardized solution without making sure that it matches the problem (more exercise will have little impact if diet is what needs to be fixed).”

“Nah. It's just that his state includes the insurance capital of the world. That's why he's throwing a stink about this.”

“Third in a week? o_o I dunno who's at fault, but whoever it is better be fired. That's a little too frequent for suspension of disbelief.”

“That definitely was not a mistake, but at least they admitted they did it. Darn, it's depressing that we have to set the bar this low for FOX. e_e”

“Cally, I took another look at both the Media Matters article, and I took a quick browse of the site. I think that it's actually talking about the same thing I am.
"as a result of rampant overcrimin­alization, trivial conduct is now often punished as a crime." - That sounds like a reference to exactly my point, although I'm still digging around the site itself just to find out more.
As for what MediaMatters accuses it of, it only focuses on a quick summary of the bills the site takes issue with, not what the site takes issue with about them.

As for the actual complaints they have, I disagree with them about HR 5652 and 3513. I take no issue with those two.

I do disagree with the public registry in Megan's Law. I personally see little point to it. It can be kept with the police so that they follow the rules laid down. There's no need to humiliate them to the public after they've served their time. Personal take, though, and I know plenty will disagree with me. ^_~ At least I'm getting good arguments in response now.”

“Hm... That's a fair enough point. I'll need to take another look at the article. Thank you very much for pointing that out. I'm sorry for keeping you waiting so long for a response. I saw your comment right as I was heading out the door and tried to respond as soon as I got in.”

“I think you misunderstand me, but thank you for responding civilly. If you would cite where I said anything that would make you think I was a nihilist, I would greatly appreciate it.”

“Very good job of not addressing her point. How about instead of snark, you practice your logical reasoning for a change?”

“Or, you know, we could fix the detail and then pass it, right? ^_^”

“Darn it, my first response didn't post. Forgive me - I'm going to try again. First of all, this is much better and actually gives me something to respond to. It is no longer a cheap comment once there is substance to it. Thank you very much for fleshing your argument out. ^_^
Yes, there are some concerns that some people will take it as the laws need to be completely scrapped (which I think is what you're saying - please correct me if I'm wrong), but I don't believe that should stop people from trying to perfect flawed legislation where it needs to be perfected. And right now I see a problem where, yes, we punish people who do commit those horrific crimes you're discussing, but we also bludgeon people who didn't commit crimes anywhere near, such as allowing consenting teenagers to have sex in their home, which is one example the editorial gives. Another is sexting. Why is sexting posession of child pornography? Certainly, it's not on the same degree of misbehavior.
Thank you for continuing to engage me. I enjoy debating with people who are open to a civil give-and-take of opinions.”

“Evidently you didn't read the editorial. My point isn't that those particular ones shouldn't be subjected to harsh penalties. My point is that such laws tend to capture a lot of more trivial behavior in their nets (such as sexting) and can ruin lives over it. There is an argument to be made that the punishment for those particular crimes should be lessened too, but I'm not one of the people who will argue that. My point is that such laws are frequently overly blunt instruments to use for them. Still, thank you for listening and not swearing at me. I appreciate it.”

“And you can feel free not to.”

“Cheap one-liner. Respond to the substance or find someone else to bug.”

“Give me a break. This is the second time HuffPo has done this story, and it's just as ridiculous as the first. HuffPo took the bait to trivialize what should be a legitimate issue to be debated. I'll link to the same editorial I did the first time to explain further: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614

I am no fan of the Heritage Foundation, but I can't stand people just trying to score cheap points even more.”

“Do you really need to ask? It's 1. We've already seen how they react before.”

“True, FOX is a bogus station, and I personally refuse to watch it, but if this is true (it's mostly anonymous sources, so I'm doubtful), it is indeed unnecessary behavior that they shoot themselves in the foot with. The question is IF it's true.”

“Linkins, my bad. But my complaint still stands.”

“Mr. Linkis, you are no Jon Stewart. Unfortunately, your sarcasm veers off so often that I lose track of your train of thought, and with it, sadly, your point.”

“Yeah, I was cracking up during that too, but I thought this one was better, if only because Colbert was remaining in character during his, whereas Stewart was trying to completely impersonate Beck and got just about every last one of his mannerisms down to a startling extent.”

“Unfortunately, one thing I've learned through college has been that "educated" doesn't equal "intellige­nt." So, so many people, especially the poli sci majors (although I know some very smart ones too), if you try to engage them in a debate about an issue, they launch into a straw man argument and never even recognize the argument that you're making. This is on both the liberal and the conservative sides. What colleges need is a good class in logic.”

“Agreed.”

“Wow, go figure. Outside of the states these elections were occurring in, the only ones who cared about these elections were partisans who already knew what they wanted to hear. CNN doesn't help itself in how it tends to cover these. But most of what it does, the other cable stations do too.”

“Fine, but there's no point to it if folks can't read your un "mo de rated" comment once it posts.”

“You know, I tried making sense out of this comment, but I had to give up before the end of the first line. Please use a spell-checker next time.”