Rivals attack Haslam's stance on guns in parks

Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam's stance on carrying guns in city parks on Thursday drew criticism from two of his Republican gubernatorial campaign opponents, while a third was somewhat more supportive.

[GPM]

Hopefully, the Peter Principle will not work in this race.

[Infidel]

It has to have been at least thirty years since I read that book, but I'm pretty sure that the Peter Principle only occurs when it's easier to refuse to promote people than it is to fire them, so that most employees rise to their level of incompetence and stay there.

That happens less often with elected offices because it's quite easy to vote someone out. The exception is that the skills required to get elected are sometimes not the same as those needed to do the job well. But the Peter Principal doesn't apply here in any case, because Haslam is trying to win the governorship, not retain it.

One of us needs to reread the book.

[GPM]

How would you explain Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, Schumer, Pelosi and many others?

[infidel]

Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, Schumer, and Pelosi may be ideologically abhorrent to you, but they are far from incompetent. It is their very effectiveness in pursuing a liberal agenda that incurs the wrath of their opponents. If they were incompetent, they would also be unremarkable and would have few political enemies.

If you really believe that one's competence is best measured according to how closely they adhere to your preferred ideology, your logical processes are too different from mine for us to ever agree.

[Highlander]

infidel wrote:

Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, Schumer, and Pelosi may be ideologically abhorrent to you, but they are far from incompetent. It is their very effectiveness in pursuing a liberal agenda that incurs the wrath of their opponents. If they were incompetent, they would also be unremarkable and would have few political enemies.
If you really believe that one's competence is best measured according to how closely they adhere to your preferred ideology, your logical processes are too different from mine for us to ever agree.

So, let's see here: According to ~yourself~, if a politician is slick and smarmy enough to fool lots of people into something they would not have otherwise, why ~that~ politician is good?
.
If a doctor convinces enough people to engage in a certain lifestyle which ultimately is deleterious to the lives of his followers, is that a good thing too, according to yourself?
.
If a politician takes rank advantage of the inculcated ignorance of the electorate, is that a good thing, especially when people actually die as a result?
.
You'll be getting back on those questions, won't you?

[Copperhead]

Just carry and STFU about it.

[infidel]

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
So, let's see here: According to ~yourself~, if a politician is slick and smarmy enough to fool lots of people into something they would not have otherwise, why ~that~ politician is good?
.
If a doctor convinces enough people to engage in a certain lifestyle which ultimately is deleterious to the lives of his followers, is that a good thing too, according to yourself?
.
If a politician takes rank advantage of the inculcated ignorance of the electorate, is that a good thing, especially when people actually die as a result?
.
You'll be getting back on those questions, won't you?

Only republicans do that kind of thing. You should thank God there are Franks, Pelosis, Kennedys, and Reids in this world.

[GPM]

Poor infidel. Do you really think that the Demonrats are any different than the Repugnicans? Why then have we had seven months of continuing Bush era policies even though the Demonrats own both houses of Congress and Resident Obama occupies the White House?

Wake-up and smell the coffee, cupcake. Both parties are rotten to their cores

[Drew]

Only republicans do that kind of thing.

Mind closed.

[Highlander]

I enquired:
—————

Highlander wrote:

So, let's see here: According to ~yourself~, if a politician is slick and smarmy enough to fool lots of people into something they would not have otherwise, why ~that~ politician is good?
.
If a doctor convinces enough people to engage in a certain lifestyle which ultimately is deleterious to the lives of his followers, is that a good thing too, according to yourself?
.
If a politician takes rank advantage of the inculcated ignorance of the electorate, is that a good thing, especially when people actually die as a result?
.
You'll be getting back on those questions, won't you?

—————
.
AND >YOU< HAD THE BLOODY FREAKING TEMERITY TO POSIT THIS:
—————

infidel wrote:

<quoted text>Only republicans do that kind of thing. You should thank God there are Franks, Pelosis, Kennedys, and Reids in this world.

—————
That remark is what's known as a 'calumny.' Look it up.
.
Are you aware that it was the democrats who supported slavery?
.
Are you also aware that it was the democrats who voted to engage in racial segregation?
.
Are you additionally aware that it was the democrats who voted to conduct medical experiments on black prisoners without their permission?
.
Are you aware too, that it was the democrats who openly suggested that the U.S. Government participate in genocide?

[NightSerf]

infidel wrote:

<quoted text>Only republicans do that kind of thing. You should thank God there are Franks, Pelosis, Kennedys, and Reids in this world.

I'll change my screen name if I need to in order to avoid confusion, but I'd appreciate it if you would use another one. I've been using infidel in this forum for quite some time and people have gotten know me.

[NightSerf]

Hah! I knew I'd outsmart myself at some point. Yes, I've been lurking as infidel for a while (some probably recognized my writing style anyway). I guess I'll just stop posting anonymously since someone has begun to spoof my unregistered screen name anyway.

[60 Gunner]

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll change my screen name if I need to in order to avoid confusion, but I'd appreciate it if you would use another one. I've been using infidel in this forum for quite some time and people have gotten know me.

Howdy to ya serf!Hope that you and yours are doing well.Don't be such a stranger!GUNNER!

[NightSerf]

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
So, let's see here: According to ~yourself~, if a politician is slick and smarmy enough to fool lots of people into something they would not have otherwise, why ~that~ politician is good?
.
If a doctor convinces enough people to engage in a certain lifestyle which ultimately is deleterious to the lives of his followers, is that a good thing too, according to yourself?
.
If a politician takes rank advantage of the inculcated ignorance of the electorate, is that a good thing, especially when people actually die as a result?
.
You'll be getting back on those questions, won't you?

The attribute under scrutiny was competence, not goodness. A politician who effectively pursues an ill-advised set of policies using deception may be smarmy, but not incompetent. If a person's outcomes match his goals, then he is competent even if the goals themselves are not worthy.

Many here share a common flaw: all or nothing thinking. If they don't like a public figure, it impermissible to acknowledge anything positive about him or her. But people are not that simple, neither all good nor all bad. The only explanations for seeing people that way are laziness, confusion, or stupidity. That goes just as much for the ultra-liberals who refuse to appreciate Reagan's wonder charm and sense of loyalty or Bush's resolute approach and self-deprecating sense of humor.

But that's how hatred works. Many are too stupid to realize that you can disagree with someone at almost every turn without hating or even disliking that person. To expect perfection of any politician is doubly stupid.

Nightserf (formerly infidel)

[NightSerf]

60 Gunner wrote:

<quoted text>Howdy to ya serf!Hope that you and yours are doing well.Don't be such a stranger!GUNNER!

Hey, Gunner, how's life on the Farm Folks thread? I'm doing fine, back to working full time while building up the band. We're changing our name to Clockwork and getting ready to go into the studio.

Keep yer powder dry and all that.

[Highlander]

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
The attribute under scrutiny was competence, not goodness. A politician who effectively pursues an ill-advised set of policies using deception may be smarmy, but not incompetent. If a person's outcomes match his goals, then he is competent even if the goals themselves are not worthy.

Do >YOU< understand the terms:
.
[1] Malfeasance
.
[2] Misfeasance
.
To SWEAR AN OATH to do ONE THING, but to undertake to DO SOMETHING entirely INIMICAL of the OATH, is NOT —in any way— indicative of 'competency.'
.
Ergo, >YOU< are engaged in MAKING EXCUSES.
.

NightSerf wrote:

Many here share a common flaw: all or nothing thinking. If they don't like a public figure, it impermissible to acknowledge anything positive about him or her. But people are not that simple, neither all good nor all bad. The only explanations for seeing people that way are laziness, confusion, or stupidity. That goes just as much for the ultra-liberals who refuse to appreciate Reagan's wonder charm and sense of loyalty or Bush's resolute approach and self-deprecating sense of humor.
But that's how hatred works. Many are too stupid to realize that you can disagree with someone at almost every turn without hating or even disliking that person. To expect perfection of any politician is doubly stupid.
Nightserf (formerly infidel)

So then, YOU are a LICKSPITTLE neocon?
.
Equivocation and dissemblance are the order of the day?
.
An oath means not a thing?
.

[NightSerf]

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
Do >YOU< understand the terms:
.
[1] Malfeasance
.
[2] Misfeasance
.
To SWEAR AN OATH to do ONE THING, but to undertake to DO SOMETHING entirely INIMICAL of the OATH, is NOT —in any way— indicative of 'competency.'
.
Ergo, >YOU< are engaged in MAKING EXCUSES.
.
<quoted text>
So then, YOU are a LICKSPITTLE neocon?
.
Equivocation and dissemblance are the order of the day?
.
An oath means not a thing?
.

The first step to seeing reality is to remove the blinders and tinted glasses known as preconceptions. Political biases and allegiances are foremost among these for many, and I avoid them. Liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, socialism--all of the isms, really--require their adherents to accept precepts with little, if any reservation.

Not for me, but apparently you are caught up in the raw emotions of your ideology. My hope for you is that you can shed them so that you can view reality unfettered by belief. In the mean time, I simply don't have the time to respond to each trivial point or objection you want to raise. Find another punching bag.

[Highlander]

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
The first step to seeing reality is to remove the blinders and tinted glasses known as preconceptions. Political biases and allegiances are foremost among these for many, and I avoid them. Liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, socialism--all of the isms, really--require their adherents to accept precepts with little, if any reservation.
Not for me, but apparently you are caught up in the raw emotions of your ideology. My hope for you is that you can shed them so that you can view reality unfettered by belief. In the mean time, I simply don't have the time to respond to each trivial point or objection you want to raise. Find another punching bag.

So then, and in other words, your proffered argument was found wanting, and instead of attempting to patch your leaking ship of lies, you abandoned it because you realised there was no ~valid~ way to save it.
.
Understood.

[greg]

GPM wrote:

Poor infidel. Do you really think that the Demonrats are any different than the Repugnicans? Why then have we had seven months of continuing Bush era policies even though the Demonrats own both houses of Congress and Resident Obama occupies the White House?
Wake-up and smell the coffee, cupcake. Both parties are rotten to their cores

someone else gets it that both partys are the same.amem

[greg]

infidel wrote:

<quoted text>Only republicans do that kind of thing. You should thank God there are Franks, Pelosis, Kennedys, and Reids in this world.

no demirats do it too