The Goat Pen

You remember the 80s?

most of it thanks to the acid

Saint wrote:the difference between overserving someone alcohol and selling them heroin is that it should be apparent at some point the customer is drunk and beyond the ability to consume more booze safely. it's not the dealers fault the heroin user overdid it and ended up dead.

it sounds like yet another legal shortcut prosecutors always like to use when dealing with drug cases.

Yeah, its more akin to someone going to the liquor store, buying 100 bucks of liquor and then dieing of alcohol poisoning. Why isn't the owner of the liquor store liable? He should have gone home with that person and made sure they didn't drink all that booze in one night!

STORY OF A BADASS

If you learned that the man in this photo -- a professional assassin -- was the head of security at one of our nation’s most vulnerable nuclear facilities, would it trouble you? Or would it sound like one hell of a story?

http://www.esquire.com/print-this/mercenary0607-3

Did you read the entire article?

it was a really interesting article, I guess, but I'm wondering why Esquire would go thru the effort to publish it. There is no shortage of guys like that in the world. Half of 'em hang out on message boards.

eCat wrote:it was a really interesting article, I guess, but I'm wondering why Esquire would go thru the effort to publish it. There is no shortage of guys like that in the world. Half of 'em hang out on message boards.

Because they paid the reporter a bunch of money to research the story. Then when it came back bullshit, they had to publish something to recoup the expense. Similar to publishing a scientific paper where the hypothesis was wrong. You've invested so much time and money in the experiments and research, you have to publish something, even if it is negative results to justify the time and expense. You polish that turd as best you can, then submit it to some second or third level peer reviewed journals.

Bluecat wrote:Did you read the entire article?

Yep. You're speaking about my lead-in to the story? I did that on purpose...as Esquire did the same thing. I don't know why I did it, but...

eCat wrote:I'm wondering why Esquire would go thru the effort to publish it.

Like the FBI agent said, "“Fuck this guy. Expose him. He’s an asshole. Guys like that make it much, much harder for the guys who are legit.”

Bklyn wrote:STORY OF A BADASS

If you learned that the man in this photo -- a professional assassin -- was the head of security at one of our nation’s most vulnerable nuclear facilities, would it trouble you? Or would it sound like one hell of a story?

http://www.esquire.com/print-this/mercenary0607-3

I thought it was against goatpen rules to post personal pics? Mook had a meltdown once when I posted his. Yet im fair game?

Tonight's 60 Minutes about the insider trading that goes on in Congress (legally) was eye opening and mind blowing. It makes sense to run for office, outside of the great lobbying and consulting gigs you get after you leave.

As one former Kentucky (I think it was Kentucky) governor said when asked about whether it was a problem limiting the governorship to 1 term said, "if you can't make a million dollars in 4 years, you don't deserve to be governor"

Every time I see footage of the Occupy Wall Streeters I think "Hamsterdam for Yuppie Offspring."

That's a shame, because if they had a coherent message, I would probably agree with 70% of it.

Soooo, you're an anarchist?

That's the 30%. I am a reformer, however, regardless of who pays me enough to enjoy (really, really enjoy) the life I lead.

These occupy wall street people are the same people the government is going to look to when they need to raise taxes to cover entitlements and the pentagon.

I think the occupy wall street people have already given them their answer.

After seeing the 60 minutes piece on congress, I think we should have a law that says any congressman that increases his wealth by a factor of X over Y period of time should be taxed at an 80% rate and audited each year after for a period of 5 years. Not sure what X and Y should be, but I'm thinking 50% over 4 years. Most Americans making $175K a year will not increase their net worth by 50% in 4 years.

Instead of chants of taxing the wealthy, we should be taxing congress.

Yeah, that piece last night was one part of the racket I was totally unaware of.

I had a detective tell me - whenever you have someone who volunteers to be an accountant or treasurer for a non profit or community centered group, and they do it for several years - then you need to be leary - its a demanding job and if they are doing it for 10 -12 years, then they are getting more out of it than they put in it - meaning they are probably embezzling in some form.

Same with public office. While someone may be truly devoted to a life of public service, if you have a person from a professional position who gives up that life to pursue a life of public service, then they are also getting more out of it than they put in it. That is nothing new, this has been going on since there America had any level of taxation and wealth. But the money to be made is much greater now, and during times of economic strife for the general public, capitalizing on the despair of the nation seems treasonous to me.

Perhaps I am naive, but one of the reasons I almost unconditionally support Ron Paul is because I feel like he really understands what it means to be a public servant and lives by that set of values.

Ron Paul seems to be a principled and disciplined man, I give you that...even though I feel his rigid ideological governance is just as dangerous as graft is in politics.

I don't know if Ron Paul has ever had a "Van Alden at the diner" moment in his professional life...but I doubt that he has.

I think he is a realist - I believe his idea is to overreach with his approach and then "settle" for whatever is compromised.

But America wants a leader - and to be a leader you have to carry yourself a certain way. Ron Paul doesn't do that. He looks more like a guy that should be running a hobby shop on main street than leader of the free world. He buys his suits at the clearance section of J.C. Penney and gets his hair cut at Great Clips.

I just happen to believe that the form of government he presents is going to happen one way or another, and its better to get their on our own terms than to wait until we have no other alternative.

Has he had a Van Alden moment? yea probably, I know Tim Russert found some earmarks he supported that helped his district awhile back. He went after him pretty hard on Meet the Press back in 2007. Paul was also notoriously frugal in the 2008 election , taking in millions of dollars and choosing not to spend it, and instead launching a political organization called Campaign for Liberty. If you are happy with Ron just shaping the national debate , then you have no problem with it, but some questioned whether he was really serious about his 2008 run. Now that he has a solid 10-15% of the polling right now, it might be thought of as a long term strategy.

At this point I realize he has limited appeal and with CBS only giving him 89 seconds in a 90 minute debate, he has no chance to improve (fuckers, I hate these jackasses who set up these debates) but I hold out hope that external issues occur such as the meltdown of Europe that makes Americans rethink his positions.