Cho wasn't considered "mentally ill" - at least by ADA standards. According to the ADA:

"An individual with a disability is a person who ... has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a 'major life activity' [which] include functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working."

Yes, Cho was obviously a few fries short of a Happy Meal, but the ADA has nothing to do with this.

I disagree whether that guy Cho was considered mentally ill. 20 years or more ago, he may have been asked to leave the school. Institutions can longer do that with people they feel may be dangerous or even suspected of mental illness. They would be sued under the ADA. Crazy and potentially dangerous people have "rights". In recent years their rights seem to trump the rights of society to be safe.

Cho was a classic failure of the system and of the psychological industry itself. He was mentally ill. His classmates knew it. Most of his teachers knew it. A district court had declared him mentally ill and a danger to others after some incidents such as stalking.

He was declared mentally ill by a court so you can't say no one knew Cho wasn't crazy.

The system fails to protect society as a whole. Privacy and anti-discrimination laws keep people like Cho in schools and in workplaces.

You haven't noticed the severe uptick in things like workplace and school shootings since these types of special interest laws were put into place.

I never said that. Actually, my views are the government shouldn't tell me what to own, do, take, as long I don't impede on the freedoms of others.

This means, no gun control, allow abortion, legalize pot, gay marriage.

You buddy, are assuming way too much there. (and NJ is awesome by the way)

Is Obama collecting illegal campaign money from foreigners?....

http://www.nysun.com/article/71113?page_no=1

These online donations need to be seriously investigated for all candidates making it too easy for illegal foreign money to flow in.

............................................



Obama campaign - Houston headquarters

I'll take a nuclear sub and several ICBM's to go.

Moby.....

Did you vote today yet?

Whoo!! Voted Obama!

Obama supports "net neutrality" which is government intervention into the internet realm.

There is nothing neutral about net neutrality.

If you care about the internet, don't vote for Obama.

More BAD NEWS about Obama and his leftist leanings.....

Obama has this thing called the "Patriot Employers Act" he is pushing with some other Democrats.

It will give a tax break and preference in the awarding of government contracts and the such.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1945

Well... guess how Obama defines whether a corporation is patriotic or not (nevermind the fact that government should not be in the business of defining patriotism.... I thought leftists have been screaming that for years)

-- A corporation has to support unions and "card check" which is an undemocratic and unconstitutional form of union takeover of workplaces (without workers voting on a union)

-- The company has to pay wages the government thinks are acceptable. They have to supply benefits and pensions the government thinks are acceptable.

An interview with Obama's partner in this legislation, Sherrod Brown....

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=283830

The Democrats, including Obama are determined to destroy every corporation in America with their push to unionize workplaces with this undemocratic "card check" leftist insanity.

You're saying that everyone knew Cho was a threat and that he was crazy, but the university didn't expel him because they feared the legal ramifications? I don't buy it. Cho wasn't considered mentally ill by ADA guidelines. ETA: which means they could've expelled Cho for a myriad of reasons - the stalking incident you mentioned - without fear of reprecussions.

Eh...I don't want to get too off topic.

If that's what you believe, why the hell are you supporting Obama? Abortion....I don't honestly think any republican is really going to tackle that, unless you get a full on evengelical in there like Huckabee. Nobody is going to legalize pot either. To do so would be admitting that the war on drugs was a waste of time, and that the governement lied all these years. Ain't gonna happen.

I'm not big on picking and choosing which liberties we should keep and which should be restricted, but abortion does not equal gun control when it comes to the constitution.

...and I still say Jersey sucks.

Do you have any opinions that were not dictated by your party?

In my opinion he's the best choice available at this time. In other words, between him, Hillary and McCain he's the best choice.

So why are you supporting McCain?

Can you even read? I've spent the majority of this thread complaining about my party and the so-called potential nominee.

Net neutrality is about the boot of government getting involved in and over the internet. It is bad. Government fucks up everything they attempt to regulate.

The question is... as one of our esteemed very left wing members of XOC, do you have any opinions not held by the far left of the Democrat Party?

Also...... Please tell us all about your new messiah, Barack Hussein Obama. What has he ever accomplished that warrants a rise to the presidency? What experience does he have?

Experienced


Experienced


Experienced


Experienced

...no offense Madman, but I think I'll see what the rookie can do.

Except that the government has ALWAYS been all over the internet. They created it, after all. They still regulate it to an extent through ICANN.

I did...at 6:30 this morning. I ended up voting because of the conservatives who are voting for Hillary (Virginia is an open primary state).

I would rather have almost anyone as the Democrat nominee over her.

I dunno if I'd call a few failed businesses and a weak governorship "political experience", WilMac old boy, but I have to cite one of my favorite old crotchety bastards, Andy Rooney, for a further opinion on what you're talking about.

Einstein For President

One of the difficult things to determine in life is how much authority to give to someone, who is smart about one thing, in an area about which he or she has no experience. Or is my question unclear?

In the recent Iowa vote - which they call a "caucus" - several Democratic candidates accused others of not having enough experience in government to run for the presidency. It’s a common accusation for one politician to make about another.

John Edwards, for example, is a senator, but he’s relatively new to politics, having been a successful trial lawyer for most of his professional career. When some of the other candidates got worried about his growing popularity, they said Edwards was in-experienced in government. He, on the other hand, said he had a fresh view of government and wasn’t a tired politician who had been in Washington for too long.

I’m not trying to make an example of Edwards here, because I don’t know enough about him, but Edwards aside, if I had my choice, I’d take the smart-est person over the most experienced anytime. Once you’ve learned something, "experience" isn’t anything but repetition.

It has amused me over my years, because so many of my friends are in the news business, to note how quickly someone smart can get to know almost everything about someone else’s business. A good reporter can do some research and then interview his subject and in a few days get to know 90 percent of everything he needs to know about his subject and his life’s work. If a good reporter can do that, there’s no reason why a good lawyer, businessman or doctor can’t get to know a lot about government in a few weeks. As far as having enough experience to be president, it’s a foolish idea. There is no experience a person could have that would familiarize him with being president of the United States.

When Howard Dean ran for governor of Vermont, opponents asked what a doctor knew about running a state government. Dean was elected and then re-elected four times. It obviously didn’t take him long to get the hang of switching from medicine and healing to politics and government. (It seems like a step down to me, but that’s another matter.)

You often read about some huge cor-poration appointing a new president. If the corporation makes widgets, the new executive is hardly ever an expert on widgets. He’s an expert on running a corporation no matter what it makes.

Albert Einstein had one of the great brains ever born to man, and he used it to the tangible advantage of civilization. It was Einstein who told Presi-dent Roosevelt in 1939 of the possibility of our making an atomic bomb with the research he had done cracking atoms in a laboratory. He spent his life working on the relativity and quantum theories, which are too complex for any but a handful of us to understand. He also produced a delightful little book of essays about life that are direct and simple enough for anyone who can read to understand. We hu-mans have amazing breadth. We can be stupid and brilliant. We can be good. We can be bad - angels one minute, devils the next.

What often occurs to me about our elections is that we get too many experienced politicians and not enough people, like Einstein, who are brilliant in some other form of endeavor. We ought to find some way of embarrassing more of our capable, even brilliant, non-political citizens to get into politics and run for office. We should not exclude our scientists, and they should not exclude themselves.

Einstein, although ineligible because of being born in Germany, would have made a great American president. If he had run, someone surely would have said, "He doesn’t have enough political experience."

What I want for my president is the smartest person in America. Forget whether or not that person is experienced in politics.

I am 100% for net neutrality, but not government mandated neutrality. If it's mandated, it's not neutral. The industry as a whole needs to by themselves realize that net neutrality is good for the web, just as the industry is starting to realize that DRM is bad.... The industry and market need to be allowed to correct themselves. I believe they will in time as the whole drm debacle is starting to self rectify.

ICANN manages the DNS and namespace. ICANN is also a non-profit corporation. Someone has to manage the namespace. There are assholes that want the UN to take control of this which would be VERY bad.

ICANN and the government regulations regarding this so-called net neutrality are not the same thing Moby and I think you know that. You're equating a mountain with a speck of dust.

The net neutrality that the Democrats want will control everything from internet commerce to government control of private infrastructure investments and who gets allocated what bandwidth and that has ramifications that even go all the way down to affecting the free speech of the internet. It's a defacto government and political control of the means of production... in an internet sense.

There is nothing neutral about net neutrality.

Conservatives voting for Hillary. Yeah right. I bet pigs were flying in Virginia today too.

Sounds like you voted for the liberal "Messiah".

Well...there's one thing in that site that is incredibly wrong:

Not that Clinton may have done that...but that Murdoch is an arch-conservative. While he may be conservative, that's not his focus.

His focus is the almighty dollar. If liberal leaning news made money, Fox News would be liberal. Murdoch became a citizen for one reason and one reason only - money - to own broadcasting outlets. He didn't become a citizen because he wanted to be an American.

Yes, conservatives. You know as well as anyone...Conservatives would rather Hillary be the Democratic nominee than Obama.

Let me repeat - OPEN primary. McCain is a foregone conclusion.

Are you sure Andy Rooney is a good guy to quote when talking about either politicians or black people...

"I've believed all along that most people are born with equal intelligence, but blacks have watered down their genes because the less intelligent ones are the ones that have the most children. They drop out of school early, do drugs and get pregnant.".... Andy Rooney 1990

Back to the topic.........

What has Obama ever done? If you go along with Rooney's standards, what makes Obama so smart?

I'll give him one thing. He's smart enough to give speeches to idiots without ever talking about a single concrete thing, yet they think he "inspires" them. He has the ability to fool them into thinking he represents something different.

Hitler and Stalin also gave good speeches calling for change and seemed to "inspire" people.

Obama is no different than any other far left Democrat when you look under the surface. He is nothing but a "cult of personality".

Obama thinks babies that survive botched abortions have no human rights and doctors should have the right to kill them - outside the womb. Is that what "inspires people". Would many people people be "inspired" knowing that fact about him?

Poor Hillary.... the liberals and the media for 15 years have been saying she is the smartest woman in America. Now Democrats are going for the "cult of personality".

You forgot the following line: "Rooney denied ever making the comment and the reporter did not tape the interview."

Nothing. I wasn't speaking about Obama, and neither was Rooney. That's not the point. The point is that experience, in Rooney's opinion, isn't as important as brains. Obama is NOT the smartest guy in the room. The smartest guy in the room should be running the show.

Comparing him to Hitler and Stalin is a bit far fetched. He hasn't a fraction of the charisma of Hitler, and ten times the charisma of Stalin. Have you heard the old recordings of Stalin? Ugh. One of the worst public speakers of all time. But a resourceful and crafty politician, a man more akin to a mafia don than a charismatic personality. Obama is neither. He's just same old Washington politics in a bit shinier, newer packaging. But, I think it might go a long way. Like I've said before, when it comes to turd sandwiches, sometimes you're tired of dried up old white feces, and you want a fresh, brown turd instead.

Again, I think you're exaggerating (big surprise there), and giving Obama a little too much credit. If he were a bonafide personality cult, he wouldn't be fighting for the White House. We'd be saying "McCain who?"

Did he actually say that? Like, in those words? If he did, fuck it, I'll vote for the man. Just out of respect for his massive balls. But, again, I think you're paraphrasing...and full of shit. Source it, and I'll sit at your right hand and do your bidding. Until then, I'm just pointing and laughing.

If Americans have demonstrated anything, it's that brains are of incredibly little importance. Jesus, take a look at the Stuttering Cowboy Clap-Clap Show we've had for the last eight years. Did we fall for the Big Brain on Bush propaganda that was thrown at us? And that was their success! remember? Bush might not be the smartest fella in town, but he's salt of the earth! A man's man! A cowboy!

Maybe the media has been propping up Hillary as a woman of intellect, but they've missed the target audience. Americans don't give a shit about brains. They want a president they "can have a beer with." We just don't idolize smart people.