|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 9, 2018 7:51:45 GMT -5
I'm sure the Lady Daniels put Trump's mouthpiece money ( which he knew absolutely positively nope nuthin' about) to good usage. Stocks, bonds, a 401K and a big-ass discount at the HIV clinic drive-thru window. Maybe she's filing a suit for the shit and giggles of embarrassing the shit out of and putting President Pussygrabber on notice that she's still out there, not going away, not shutting up and probably angling for a book and an upcoming tour to The View, The Talk, Megan Kelly Live, 60 Minutes, and Dr. Phil. Told'ja.
Wonder when the interview airs will Trump be watching in the White House or Mar-A-Lago? And will Melania and Barron be watching with him? "See, Barron? This is who I was foolin' around with while mommy passed you off to the nanny to change your poopy diaper."
"She's sure got some big ones, Dad."
"That's my boy!"
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 8, 2018 8:31:00 GMT -5
For reasons only God and Betsy DeVos know, the Secretary of Education Ignorance, decided to visit Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. It did not go well.DeVos is such a waste of air.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 7, 2018 20:42:04 GMT -5
Seriously, can things get any crazier? I mean, I'm actually pretty sure they will. I'm just hard pressed to think of how. Challenge accepted. Jimmy Kimmel presents The Donald and Stormy Sex Tape.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 7, 2018 20:32:43 GMT -5
Cut the false indignation, okay? This is a woman who regularly gets naked on camera and fucks and sucks on film and lets guy splooge on her face for losers to fap to. There's nothing classy about gang-bangin' complete strangers for cash and she's not Meryl Fucking Streep. The fake feminist man posturing does not sell here. The same guy who was so bent out of shape by the Pink Pussy Hats can hardly start harrumphing over a lady whose hustle is putting hers on display. I'm sure the Lady Daniels put Trump's mouthpiece money ( which he knew absolutely positively nope nuthin' about) to good usage. Stocks, bonds, a 401K and a big-ass discount at the HIV clinic drive-thru window. Maybe she's filing a suit for the shit and giggles of embarrassing the shit out of and putting President Pussygrabber on notice that she's still out there, not going away, not shutting up and probably angling for a book and an upcoming tour to The View, The Talk, Megan Kelly Live, 60 Minutes, and Dr. Phil. Who knows? It might encourage Donald's other Close Encounters of the Third Kind to come forward with their own reports on what sort of a freak he is between the sheets. I wonder if Stormy's got pics? Or a sex tape? Or pics and a sex tape? Inquiring minds and all that... Maybe that hinges on who Trump owes and what sort of dirt they have on his ass. Then he'll cough up the cash to keep secret what he'd prefer never become public.If nothing happened between Donny and Stormy, someone sure is trying real hard to make sure nobody finds out differently. Can't imagine why...
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 7, 2018 20:07:53 GMT -5
One dead and two wounded, you say? Sorry. Body count's too low. Nobody gives a fuck, I say.
This is America where we love our goddamned guns more than our flesh and spilled blood.
Now prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 7, 2018 9:47:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 6, 2018 18:13:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 4, 2018 20:44:05 GMT -5
Let's play it out.
John Doe enters a school with a gun. Let's say Mr. Harris is ex military and a dead shot and is trained, able to keep his cool, etc. So he unlocks the gun safe, gets the gun, loads it, confronts Doe. Let's say best case, Doe is a teen who hasn't shot much, so Harris can shoot him quickly.
How many kids get killed before that?
Same issue if we ban this type of gun. Doe enters with a hand gun. He's still shooting, killing. Nobody can stop him if they're not armed. Who's going to try and tackle him? Unless a bunch of people try at the same time, how is a hand gun that much less effective? Okay, so maybe he'll have to stop and reload faster, but unless someone is waiting until that moment arrives, it's probably not much difference. I think you still end up with a bunch of dead kids. So maybe instead of 17 it's 15 and yeah before anyone says it, if it were my child there, I'd want that chance they could be one of the extra 2 that survive. I'm not saying we shouldn't have that discussion.
I'd just like to look at ways to stop Doe from entering the school to shoot it up to begin with. Until we figure that out, we're just trying to limit the damage.
And if you ban AK 47s today and next year someone enters a school with a shotgun or handgun, won't most people just advocate for those to be banned?
Not. Necessarily. As I've demonstrated before, the AR-15 is a killing weapon and it's damn good at killing a lot of people quickly and efficiently. This is your standard Slippery Slope argument, Vince and sorry, but I've seen it all before. You are presented with the fact that a particular weapon keeps showing up time and time again in mass shootings and your answer remains consistent. Can't we figure out how to harden the target so spree killers can't enter the school, dance club, business meeting, outdoor concert or anywhere else the AR-15 has shown up and multiple people have ended up dead? Because if the killer wants to kill and can't get his weapon of choice, he'll just use another kind of gun or rifle or nuclear weapon or flamethrower or slingshot or big-ass rock. We're not talking about an AK-47 because an AK-47 wasn't used in Parkland. Or Las Vegas. Or Orlando. Or Newtown. It was an AR-15, so please focus on what was used instead of what was not. Personal pet peeve here, okay? Nobody who is not in the U.S. Armed Forces needs a damn AR-15. There has to be a better justification provided by the defenders of gun right for a civilian to own an AR-15 than, " I want one." Sorry, not good enough. As far as banning the AR-15 and other military grade weaponry goes, since when have conservatives had such a problem with bans? Bans don't work. Prohibition and the War on Drugs have proved that. But there's still no goddamn logical reason why an 18-year-old fuck-up should be able to get a fucking AR-15 and I don't care what anyone says. Let's make it harder for the next Nicolas Cruz to get his hands on that kind of firepower and see if the next school massacre is due to a nut running around with a knife, a .38 or bashing kids on the head with a George Foreman Grille. When that happens we can talk about banning those things next. Also, can we stop dredging up the fact that I didn't answer NT in a timely manner? Good grief! This board is voluntary, is it not? I've already explained that I left the board for a short time (can't remember why), and when i returned, NT was banned. I waited for him to return. Then I answered. I honestly don't know why that has gotten so far up people's underpants. I'm not wise on the subject, just practical. I even PM'd Amadan to explain. Heck, even NT didn't complain about it like others did. And he's the one who asked the question! Maybe it's time to leave that in the past and move on? Well, to be fair, I did bring it up upon my return. Did you miss it? Because you didn't answer it then either.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2018 13:07:49 GMT -5
Jesus Fucking Christ. I think Cass dealt pretty well with this Wall of Stupid, but I still can't resist. celaw, I'm writing a really long post to take apart your arguments thoroughly, rationally, and factually. It's a waste of my time because I know you're going to either pretend not to see it, or disingenuously say "I'll get back to you when I'm not ever so very busy with my busy, busy important life" and then hope everyone forgets about it. But I'm gonna do it anyway because I hope the sting of an intellectual ass-whupping lingers in your mind and maybe suppresses your impulse to start banging out Townhall talking points. Hope springs eternal. celaw, You. Don't. Know. Shit. About. Guns. (And by the way, it's kind of funny that Cass refers to me as one of CG's "gun experts." I'm really not. I own guns, I was in the Army (where, by the way, I fired an M-16 on full auto exactly once - in Basic Training) and occasionally I go punch holes in paper at the range. I am not actually that much of a "gun guy" other than very much believing that I have a right to own guns. And reading a lot about them. But I still know a hell of a lot more than you, and you are no better than the equally laughable gun control advocate who wail on about "semi-automatic assault rifles" and want to ban all the firesticks. This has been your crushing rhetorical smackdown for the day. Think twice, think better next time. ETA: This is directed at NT, for clarification. I find it amusing that you're suddenly anti-ranting. However, while I did rant at celaw, my rant was rational and factual. Just like my words here are rational and factual, and rather than addressing them, you point to some other thing I posted by way of rebuttal. You really don't understand logical fallacies, which is why you commit them so constantly. Here's what I really do understand. You're very quick to point out to others their lapses of logic, stumbles into emotional appeals instead of rational reasoning, and talking shit to others while claiming to be "rational and factual." If one considers it rationally a "rational rant" is a complete oxymoron. You were not rationally arguing with celawson's point. You belittled and mocked and rebuked and scorned. I'm good with all of that as I'm quite skilled in the fine art of belittling, mocking, rebuking and scorning. Difference is, I do it with panache. Joking. Dropping "Jesus Fucking Christ" and "Wall of Stupid" bombs and dubbing a rant a "crushing rhetorical smackdown" is not factual and hardly rational. Neither is telling celawson she doesn't know shit about guns. What's that make you? An expert? I respect the fact many of the members of this board have considerably more expertise in areas I do not. What I know I know and what I don't I don't. There's nothing I can tell Cassandra or Markesq about the legal profession and nothing I can tell Opty about teaching a college course or celawson about the practice of medicine. What I can do is express an opinion about what they do and when I'm right hooray for me, but when I'm wrong, they should tell me I'm full of crap. A board I used to actively participate on (not the one you're thinking) had a rule: Personal attacks, name-calling, or belittling another member. This includes telling other members to shut up or be quiet, as well as telling other members they are not qualified to post their opinions.I ran afoul of that rule more than once, but it was a good rule. However, not everyone is qualified to post their opinion. Oh, they are entitled to do so and others are then allowed to read it, roll their eyes and say, "What the fuck are you TALKING about? You don't know shit!" I certainly feel that way when I see some of the posts here, there and elsewhere about race and I want to beat somebody's head in with a hammer. But while I don't like you Amadan and you don't like me, I suspect there is a grudging respect for each other which is why you said you wanted me to return after my last enforced time-out. We're toxic together, but you know your shit (most of the time) and I know mine (most of the time) and that oil and water cocktail (ummmm...yummy!) can result in some volatile explosions of withering scorn. Which is pretty wearying for the Mods, but at least it makes things lively. Because even while we're talking to each other and agreeing on NOTHING, we're at least keeping the lines of discussion open and that keeps alive the possibility that we might agree on SOMETHING. That's a point Vince was trying to make earlier. Wayne LaPierre no more wants to see his loved ones on the receiving end of a bullet than Sarah Brady does, but they can't even begin to open a dialogue because both sides are so polarized and nobody's looking for that elusive middle ground. I'm hopeful the Emma Gonzalezs of this world will do a better job of finding it than my generation has. We now return you to our regularly scheduled raving and drooling. But first a word from the Moderator: MOD NOTE:No one is in trouble here, at all, to be clear. So far, angry as we are, I don't think we've yet crossed over into personal attack. Any of us. But please, because I so much sincerely want ALL of you, even the ones I disagree with, to keep posting, please be careful to continue to aim your anger at the words and ideas, and not the members. Stop, think, consider. I will also try to do this. Get as angry as you like. As I've said, I think it's perfectly valid. Smiley faces and politeness are not required. Be as withering and pissy as you like. Just, please, be mindful of the line. We're all upset, we all care. Remember -- for our purposes, the argument is what is horrible and wrong and stupid. This was just your friendly neighborhood mod reminder -- to myself, as much as any of you. Carry on. Message received.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2018 12:15:43 GMT -5
So what are you saying? Are you opposed to victim-impact statements, Amadan? Are you suggesting it was unfair to serial sexual predator like Larry Nasser to have to listen to his accusers denounce his very existence in open court? There is no rational reading of my words that would lead to that conclusion. Of course it's emotionally compelling. But it's not a rebuttal. " Rational reading" you say? " Emotionally compelling" you say? Yeah, not buying it. Anyone who has gone off a total and complete RANT the way you did the other day against celawson has little credibility in claiming rationality after that particular act of emotional purging.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2018 12:04:37 GMT -5
I'm also in favor of victim impact statements. I'm in favor of letting the Parkland kids get active on this, and I think we should hear them. Very obviously I think so -- it has been the point of most of my rants in this (and one or two other threads). They absolutely have a perspective we should be facing and thinking about. Indeed, I think they have a special right to speak (which doesn't necessarily mean we do whatever they think we should do). I hold no truck with "oh, they are obviously too traumatized, so let's disregard them altogether." That said -- "You're not a parent, and therefore your opinion is less worthy than that of a parent"? Yeah, that's what we call an argument fallacy. (And celawson , for the record, I might not have responded to your last post with the withering sarcasm I did had you not tried that one on me.) I think we look at what everyone is saying on its merits, and consider (or at least try to consider) -- is a point of view purely an emotional lizard brain reaction, or is it actually one we should be considering and implementing? The fact that an argument is made by someone who is emotional (or who is a child or a parent or a victim or a family member of a victim or a childless atheist in NYC) doesn't make it any better or any worse (though it certainly impacts how it is received). If the legal system were populated with nothing but Vulcans we'd have a logic-based, emotionless result, but I don't know if it would get us any closer to achieving true justice. The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas are displaying what too many of our politicians are not and that's leadership. Not because they are traumatized, but because they have become energized and mobilized to take action and what's so bad about that? They didn't get that way by accident. They were taught to be that way. What scares the forces aligned to tell the teens to sit down, shut up and be quiet, is these young folks aren't hearing any of that foolishness. They want to be heard and they aren't just going to go away because an NRA tool like Rubio wishes they would.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2018 11:37:12 GMT -5
Yes, I did, but not in the vacuum devoid of context you're suggesting. I said stuff like that because you said stuff like this: " I fail to see how not rushing blindly into a situation, potentially to one's death, can be considered failing at one's job. " Mr. Guttenberg lost his daughter in the shooting and he says Peterson failed. You say he didn't. It's entirely fair to suggest you can explain to Mr. Guttenberg why that is. I get it why you'd prefer not to, but you're the one who opened that door. You're not talking about whether or not Peterson's actions were reasonable (as I am), you're just talking about how it makes emotionally traumatized people feel. It's like asking someone who defends the right to due process after a violent criminal is acquitted, "Why don't you look his victim's family in the eyes and tell them the justice system works?" It may be that one has very reasonable arguments for the way the system worked, but no one expects a grief-stricken victim or survivor to calmly debate abstract principles of justice (or police procedure) and it's unfair to demand people defending it to basically go provoke them. So what are you saying? Are you opposed to victim-impact statements, Amadan? Are you suggesting it was unfair to serial sexual predator like Larry Nasser to have to listen to his accusers denounce his very existence in open court? Simply because someone is grief-stricken due to some unfortunate calamity it does not follow they are incapable of making reasoned, sound and rational decisions and statements. I find what Mr. Guttenberg said about Peterson's lack of direct action to be compelling. You can dismiss Guttenberg as being "emotionally traumatized" if you so choose, but despite burying his murdered daughter, he seems lucid to me. Words have power and his words about Peterson are powerful as well as compelling. You can no more extract emotion from the legal system than you can extract diamonds from the earth without digging for it. (insert shrug here) You're entitled to that opinion, but I disagree with it. Fathers crying over murdered daughters is extremely valid and it resonates far more than coldly dispassionate musings by a disinterested third party on a debate board. Or to put it another way, Mr. Guttenberg is closer to being right than any of us are.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2018 10:44:44 GMT -5
I fail to see how not rushing blindly into a situation, potentially to one's death, can be considered failing at one's job. The same accusation that "they" don't actually give a shit about the kids at the end of the day" could apply equally to you. For you, the kids are just props you're using to club others on the head with your club of virtuous authority. It could, if I was the one using the kids or their families in this discussion. But I'm not. Am I? In contrast, you say stuff like this: Yes, I did, but not in the vacuum devoid of context you're suggesting. I said stuff like that because you said stuff like this: " I fail to see how not rushing blindly into a situation, potentially to one's death, can be considered failing at one's job. " Mr. Guttenberg lost his daughter in the shooting and he says Peterson failed. You say he didn't. It's entirely fair to suggest you can explain to Mr. Guttenberg why that is. I get it why you'd prefer not to, but you're the one who opened that door.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2018 9:54:03 GMT -5
It's odd Hope Hicks was the White House Communications Director, but the only TV footage I've seen of her actually speaking was at a Trump rally last year. In Corey Lewandowski's book that nobody read, he relates a tale where Trump said of Hicks, "she has as much experience as a coffee cup" to which Lewandowski replied that Hicks was "good looking" to which Trump responded, "that always helps." Lewandowski also says Hicks had another responsibility. Ew. There's a visual I did not need. Nothing I've read about Ms. Hicks leads me to believe she was anything more than a very pretty face Trump liked hanging around because she was a very pretty face. If she is willing to dye her hair, she could have a very lucrative and successful career as a Fox News Blonde. Best of luck, H.H.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2018 9:26:02 GMT -5
I'm going to maintain that the people who need to publicly label Petersen a coward and run him down--again, like Trump, like Scott Israel, like the hordes of mouth-breathers on twitter--are doing so just so they can seem and feel superior, nothing else. They don't actually give a shit about the the kids at the end of the day. The kids are just props that they're using for an purpose or another. This misinformed urge to defend Peterson's indefensible cowardly decision is an exercise in demonstrating your moral superiority over "the hordes of mouth-breathers on Twitter." The same accusation that "they" don't actually give a shit about the kids at the end of the day" could apply equally to you. For you, the kids are just props you're using to club others on the head with your club of virtuous authority. No plot required, just a normal human desire to place the blame somewhere. Scapegoats are nothing new, and require no Illuminati plot to implement. I don't have any faith that any government can prevent such tragedies, or that doing so is first on their agenda. If that were indeed the case, the discussion would be about mental health issues, not the particular weapon chosen by a crazy person to assist them in their insanity. Despite the armchair analysis by Dr. Don, Nicholas Cruz has not been determined to be "a crazy person" or that he suffers from "insanity." This is simply typical right-wing fearmongering that there are hordes of heavily-armed, mouth drooling mentally ill madmen lining up at the gun store to buy more AR-15. Naturally, it's not the artillery they are purchasing that's the problem. It's the nuts who are easily able to get their hands on them. How sad that Mr. Free Enterprise seems to have failed to realize the problem here lies with Supply as well as Demand. It's much easier to babble about scary mentally ill people as if everyone who suffers from mental illness is prone to snap and become violent.
|
|