Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
3 Pages123>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline wpr  
#1 Posted : Monday, September 16, 2013 4:06:27 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 12,352
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,751
Applause Received: 1,319

Quote:
The Secret Service has arrested a man for tossing firecrackers over a fence at the White House.

A federal law enforcement official says the shoeless man was immediately arrested Monday. An Associated Press photographer heard what sounded like two gunshots outside the White House. Three uniformed Secret Service officers arrested a middle-aged man. The man was white, with dark hair, a blue shirt and white shorts. His white shoes lay on the ground near where the officer tackled him.

The incident happened just hours after at least one suspect opened fire inside the Washington Navy Yard, killing at least 12 people. The gunman was also killed.


poor joke.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Sponsor
Offline Porforis  
#2 Posted : Monday, September 16, 2013 4:09:43 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,738
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 168
Applause Received: 333

People have been shot dead for much less. Idiot.
UserPostedImage
Offline wpr  
#3 Posted : Monday, September 16, 2013 4:15:13 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 12,352
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,751
Applause Received: 1,319

forgot picture

UserPostedImage
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Offline John252  
#4 Posted : Monday, September 16, 2013 6:03:13 PM(UTC)
John252

Rank: 7th Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 25
Joined: 9/15/2013(UTC)
Location: North Carolina

Applause Given: 4
Applause Received: 6

Wow, I was expecting it to be some stupid kid, not a grown man who should've known better. He's lucky he didn't get shot.
UserPostedImage
Offline wpr  
#5 Posted : Monday, September 16, 2013 6:18:18 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 12,352
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,751
Applause Received: 1,319

I have to wonder if he is a few bricks short of a full load.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Offline Porforis  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:30:17 AM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,738
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 168
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
I have to wonder if he is a few bricks short of a full load.


He probably shat a few when the secret service came running.
UserPostedImage
Offline Wade  
#7 Posted : Friday, September 20, 2013 5:56:36 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,768
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 630
Applause Received: 648

Once upon a time this would have been considered legitimate political dissent.

The more "threats" we feel our elected leaders need protection from, the less real protection our own liberty has.

I'm again in the minority. I consider Secret Service action here absurd. Do we really think a string of firecrackers tossed a few feet over the fence is a bona fide threat to our revered leader. How far is the building from this fence? Last I knew the danger from firecrackers had a range measured in, what, feet?

Oh, I suppose that it could be seen as a possible "distraction" move for some sort of massive assault from another direction. And you're telling me that with all the secret service protection set up, they can't distinguish such an amateurish action from the first part of a concerted multipart action.

Seems to me that Marine guard in the hall of the Oval Office knows something about division of attention and not immediately going to attack stations (or whatever the real name is) everytime a bunch of firecrackers goes off within a couple hundred yards of his position.

Are the secret service that friggin' amateur?

Bah.
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#8 Posted : Friday, September 20, 2013 6:19:58 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Posts: 2,536
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 389
Applause Received: 224

I think something like the firecrackers would have gotten you in trouble even pre-911, even 50 or 100 years ago. They're pretty sensitive about things that go boom even if it's obviously not gunfire. I assume most of the guards stayed at their posts instead of getting diverted. The prospect of a diversion from something more serious is reason alone to detain the guy.

I don't have any respect for Obama (surprise surprise hahaha), but strict security around the White House or anywhere the president is seems proper to me. After all, the guy might have been a self-proclaimed anarchist or something. Laughing
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline wpr  
#9 Posted : Friday, September 20, 2013 6:55:20 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 12,352
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,751
Applause Received: 1,319

The local chief of police came to my neighbors door a few years ago for popping off firecrackers. It is illegal in IL. They generally turn a blind eye around the 4th (this was on the 5th). He didn't haul him off but he was a bit grumpy telling my neighbor he should know better and not to do it again.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Offline Wade  
#10 Posted : Friday, September 20, 2013 2:26:09 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,768
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 630
Applause Received: 648

How easily we assent to statism.

Firecrackers are illegal lots of places. A pretty early and widespread example of nanny laws, but everyone's okay with that sort of thing now, so never mind.

A firecracker going off is not like an "explosion". Now there are fireworks that have that character. But I thought the original story say "firecrackers", not fireworks. If the guy is shooting commercial-level firework rockets over the fence, that's a big difference. But firecrackers, even a big lit string of them, doesn't "explode". I suppose some might sound like a machine gun -- none I have ever seen come close, but I don't pretend to be an aficionado of fireworks. But I find it hard to think of them as indicating a clear and present danger to the President.

What is it, 99.99 percent of firecracker injuries are suffered by the people playing with them?

Has no one ever seen a Chinese New Year parade? They involve *lots* of firecrackers.

Like I said, no one ever seems to have much problem with any additional security measures to protect our elected officials. It's the President after all. It's the White House. Blah blah blah.

Put it this way. Suppose I take a bag of rotten tomatoes to an Obama speech. What's the chance that I'm going to (a) be able to get within throwing distance of him or (b) be able to throw one at him without being subject to use of force by the guys with earsets and interrogation a la Leroy Jethro Gibbs?

Maybe if presidents and congresspeople knew they had to deal with rotten tomatos, they'd do a little better job.

We'll never know, of course. Their tailored suits are too damn valuable to the national interest to allow such "lack of respect" to take place.

Bleh.

None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline wpr  
#11 Posted : Friday, September 20, 2013 4:29:28 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 12,352
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,751
Applause Received: 1,319

It is not that I disagree with you. So now what? We may not like it but is isn't going to change.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Offline texaspackerbacker  
#12 Posted : Friday, September 20, 2013 9:12:22 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Posts: 2,536
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 389
Applause Received: 224

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
How easily we assent to statism.

Firecrackers are illegal lots of places. A pretty early and widespread example of nanny laws, but everyone's okay with that sort of thing now, so never mind.

A firecracker going off is not like an "explosion". Now there are fireworks that have that character. But I thought the original story say "firecrackers", not fireworks. If the guy is shooting commercial-level firework rockets over the fence, that's a big difference. But firecrackers, even a big lit string of them, doesn't "explode". I suppose some might sound like a machine gun -- none I have ever seen come close, but I don't pretend to be an aficionado of fireworks. But I find it hard to think of them as indicating a clear and present danger to the President.

What is it, 99.99 percent of firecracker injuries are suffered by the people playing with them?

Has no one ever seen a Chinese New Year parade? They involve *lots* of firecrackers.

Like I said, no one ever seems to have much problem with any additional security measures to protect our elected officials. It's the President after all. It's the White House. Blah blah blah.

Put it this way. Suppose I take a bag of rotten tomatoes to an Obama speech. What's the chance that I'm going to (a) be able to get within throwing distance of him or (b) be able to throw one at him without being subject to use of force by the guys with earsets and interrogation a la Leroy Jethro Gibbs?

Maybe if presidents and congresspeople knew they had to deal with rotten tomatos, they'd do a little better job.

We'll never know, of course. Their tailored suits are too damn valuable to the national interest to allow such "lack of respect" to take place.

Bleh.



Wade, you missin' politics? I get the impression this discussion is more about "statism" than it is about firecrackers.

I had an uncle who got partially blinded in one eye messing with firecrackers. When I was a kid, a neighbor scared my dog with one - I got yelled at for beating the crap out of him even though he was a year older than me - never mind that I outweighed him by 20 pounds or so - he had it coming. But somehow, I think that isn't the direction you want the discussion to go hahahaha.

I never even heard the word "statism" until fairly recent years. Tell me, if a country that practices Communism is Communistic, is a country practicing "statism" therefore "statistic"? So then, would somebody who cares too much about "statism" then be called a ........ drum roll ........ a "stat whore"?

OK, Wade, sorry to take too lightly your pet "ism". To answer your question, I think your chances would be pretty good. The tomatoes wouldn't set off the metal detector, and if somebody questioned what you were carrying, you could always say you stopped off at the super market on the way to the speech. They say anybody willing to die trying would stand a good chance of getting close enough to assassinate somebody. If you were willing to do the time, I'd put it at about 70/30 you could perpetrate the crime - rotten tomatoes I mean. And after some roughing up and some Gibbs-like interrogation or worse, you probably would get off with nothing worse than disorderly conduct plea bargained down from assault.

As for statism, IMO, it's a problem, but an overrated problem. I hate government intrusion as much as the next person - no, more than about 99.99% of the population. However, my distaste for that intrusion is mostly bottom up - seat belt laws, left turn signals, that annoying little pause between red one direction and green the other, etc. And most of that crap is inflicted on us without even any legislation, just bureaucratic tyranny. Where in the Constitution is it strictly constructed that they can stick us with that shit? The higher level examples which I guess would be called "statism" used to be differentiated between do-gooderism, both in terms of government handouts and in terms of Federal versions of the kind of regulation I hate, AND the fields of national security and interventionist foreign policy. Back then, it was fairly easily framed as a liberal/Democrat versus conservative/Republican matter. Nowadays - you tell me when it became this way, my guess would be about 10 - 15 years ago - a group has risen up which you obviously are a part of that lumps it all in together, and detests both halves of that "statism". In addition to when, I'm wondering WHO framed it that way. My guess would be the leftist mainstream media, because obviously, the big winners are the leftist politicians - having a wedge very successfully driven between the two kinds of conservatives - those who think like you - opposed to BOTH of those descriptions of "statism", and those who think like me (which I assume you call "statists") who favor a high degree of national security and interventionist foreign policy.

It is that wedge that more than any other single factor gave us the evil known as Obama - and a huge serving of the kind of statism we both detest.

Dontcha just love political discussion, Wade? Dontcha just feel sorry for those losers who don't? hahahahahahaha
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Wade  
#13 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 7:08:49 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,768
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 630
Applause Received: 648

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
It is not that I disagree with you. So now what? We may not like it but is isn't going to change.


I don't know. I'm not a revolutionary, nor someone who can get lots of followers when I start things.

All I can do is try to speak my beliefs the best, and hope some others listen. And that, eventually, some of those who listen will people who others will follow.

As Arlo Guthrie put it, "if one person does it, then they'll just think you're crazy ... but if forty people a day do it, then ...."



None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline Wade  
#14 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 7:38:32 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,768
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 630
Applause Received: 648

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
However, my distaste for that intrusion is mostly bottom up - seat belt laws, left turn signals, that annoying little pause between red one direction and green the other, etc. And most of that crap is inflicted on us without even any legislation, just bureaucratic tyranny. Where in the Constitution is it strictly constructed that they can stick us with that sh!t?


The Commerce Clause (per Justice Jackson in Wickard v. Filburn, 1942).

So it's not just 15, but nearly 75 years since "strict construction" fell out of the story.

And with now three generations of Americans "educated" in schools that have been teaching deference to government as both mommy and daddy of last resort, I fear that it's never going to get back in.

You see, I don't see this as a "political" problem at all. Politics is about getting power to make other people do things we want them to do. It's merely a place where people argue about what government should do to others on our behalf.

What is needed is not a political solution where we shift power from liberal to conservative or from conservative to liberal. It's not a solution where we use the state to make others do what I think they should do or make me do what others think I should do. What is needed is a constitutional solution. A solution where we recognize that politics is not the solution. That it cannot be, even when it acts via a majority of the population.

We need a solution where we re-constitute ourselves and remember (or, for most, now, learn) that the function of the state is not to give control to experts and other philosopher-kings as that idiot Plato thought. It is not to impose order on individuals who naturally will war against each other like Thomas Hobbes thought. And it is definitely not a toolbox for building us into "the good society," for providing "the greatest good for the greatest number," as Jeremy Bentham and his legion of liberal and conservative descendants have it. The state is merely something that we use to protect the rights of individuals of those who, out of bad motives or good ones, would use the power of the state to restrict.

But in a nation where less than ten percent has ever carefully thought about the words of the Declaration of Independence, where less than a fraction of one percent has ever read Paine or Burke, The Federalist OR The Anti-Federalist?

I have no clue how it will ever happen.

All I know how to do is emulate Don Quixote.

Edited by user Saturday, September 21, 2013 9:52:27 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#15 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 7:46:20 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Posts: 2,536
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 389
Applause Received: 224

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post


The Commerce Clause (per Justice Jackson in Wickard v. Filburn, 1942).

So it's not just 15, but nearly 75 years since "strict construction" fell out of the story.

And with now three generations of Americans "educated" in schools that have been teaching deference to government as both mommy and daddy of last resort, I fear that it's never going to get back in.

You see, I don't see this as a "political" problem at all. Politics is about getting power to make other people do things we want them to do. It's merely a place where people argue about what government should do to others on our behalf.

What is needed is not a political solution where we shift power from liberal to conservative or from conservative to liberal. It's not a solution where we use the state to make others do what I think they should do or make me do what others think I should do. What is needed is a constitutional solution. A solution where we recognize that politics is not the solution. That it cannot be, even when it acts via a majority of the population.

We need a solution where we re-constitute ourselves and remember (or, for most, now, learn) that the function of the state is not to give control to experts and other philosopher-kings as that idiot Plato thought. It is not to impose order on individuals who naturally will war against each other like Thomas Hobbes thought. And it is definitely not a toolbox for building us into "the good society," for providing "the greatest good for the greatest number," as Jeremy Bentham and his legion of liberal and conservative descendants have it. The state is merely something that we use to protect the rights of individuals of those who, out of bad motives or good ones, would use the power of the state to restrict.

But in a nation where less than ten percent has ever carefully thought about the words of the Declaration of Independence, where less than a fraction of one percent has ever read Paine or Burke, The Federalist OR The Anti-Federalist?

I have no clue how it will ever happen.

All I know how to do is emulate Don Quixote.



Excellent post, Wade, but you really should re-format it so that your wise words you up as yours instead of looking like I said it. Perhaps we could get some moderator help ......

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages123>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Recent Topics
32m / Green Bay Packers Talk / porky88

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Tezzy

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Tezzy

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / mi_keys

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

15h / Fantasy Sports Talk / pitt yinzer

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.