|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 12, 2018 19:06:12 GMT -5
On my phone so not able to type much, but to NT - I wish we had video of the meeting. I don't think anyone reporting this knows exactly what was said and how it was said. I think the Tapper explanation about Haiti makes sense. So the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, TIME, Newsweek and even fucking Fox News are lying their collectives asses off and only Trump is telling the truth? Here's what I think. I think asked you five simple questions. You answered NONE of them. Whether you're on your phone or not, you seem to have no problem waving away Trump's latest act of hatefulness and blowing it off. A video would mean nothing. Here's something else I know. When Trump said he could shoot someone and not lose any votes, he knew his base. They NEVER know "exactly what was said" and even when they DO they rationalize, they blow it off and they deny, deny, deny. Trump supporters are the new Flat-Earthers. ANY news report or any news report from any news source that doesn't kiss Trump's flabby, fat ass? Sticking your head in the sand and plugging your fingers in the ears is not what someone who even wants the truth does. Saying you can't believe it if wasn't recorded is a crap defense, celawson. You can pretend Trump didn't say "grab 'em by the pussy" but he said it. You can pretend Trump meant something entirely different when he said there were very fine people among the White supremacists in Charlottesville and you can parse two chickenshit GOP senators who didn't DENY what Trump said, they just don't REMEMBER him saying it, and it's still gonna be bullshit going down one hole and bullshit when it comes out of the other. Cotton didn't say Trump didn't say what he said. Neither did Perdue. Or Goodlatte. Or Graham. They just gave a non-denial denial. Waaaaal...he might have said it. I wasn't really listening....Dick Durbin did so don't believe the b.s. hype. Trump lies. He lies even when there's no reason to or any benefit to it. He lies because he likes lying. He's good at it and he's gotten so good at it because his supporters and admirers enable the lying. That's not skepticism. That's solipsism. If you can't trust any news reports coming with a leftward perspective, how about one coming from the Right?Not simply determined to make it worse, but hell-bent to make it worse. Trump gets riled up if his toast isn't buttered from end-to-end. What you suspect is a deflection and a dodge. A deal on DACA was why Senator Durbin was there and he thought he had one which is why Lindsay Graham was there with him only to find immigration hardliners, Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue, and Congressman Bob Goodlatte waiting for him as well as Trump---the same lying asshole who had said two days earlier with the TV cameras rolling he was eager to sign any deal on DACA. Durbin and Graham walked into the White House with a deal they believe Trump would sign. Turns out he had changed his tiny little mind yet again and reached into the Oval Office Shithole and threw shit all over the Durbin/Graham deal. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. You weren't there. You didn't see the video or if you did the sound wasn't on. If it wasn't covered on "Fox & Friends" it's all Fake News, right? Your president is a racist. Not "dumb" or "stupid." Racist. Racist as in does not like Blacks or Latinos or Muslims. Trump is a racist and I can prove it with his own words and deeds. You can try and prove he's not.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 12, 2018 15:11:44 GMT -5
I'm going to add this Twitter feed from Jake Tapper of CNN who is trying to get an accurate report of what went down. CLick on it and scroll down to read his info. The Haiti comment seems understandable. The "s***hole" comment...sigh. I was actually going to post a new thread with link to a C-Span video of the meeting Trump called between Dems and Repubs in Congress as a sort of pre-meeting for the DACA issue. I was pretty impressed at how Trump ran that meeting, and it was very clear he's not unintelligent nor suffering from dementia, by how he ran that meeting. And it showed that he does approach some things in a new way from career politicians. I particularly liked when he told Congress to let him take heat, that he doesn't mind and actually likes heat, because he isn't a career politician and it is more important to get things accomplished than worry about heat. I was actually excited that something good would be accomplished in a bipartisan way. (It also struck me that in that meeting, those congress people seemed like children who needed hand-holding to get DACA legislation accomplished. What the heck why can't they act like adults and get things done?) Maybe I still will start a thread about that. It was fascinating to watch. Then this happens. I don't think Trump is dumb about everything. I think he has intelligence, and I think he has street smarts and cunning and a good gut instinct. But he is dumb about these sorts of outbursts. I do think he simply has no filter. He seriously keeps shooting himself in the foot just when it appears he's done things he can legitimately crow about. It's so frustrating. Frustrating?Do you really think a man who calls Haiti and African countries "shitholes" is "frustrating?" Do you really think a man who says the U.S. needs more immigrants from Norway is "frustrating?" Do you really think the ends justifies the means even if the means are suffused in rancid bigotry and racial prejudice? Do you really not see there is no intelligence, zero street smarts, a lack of cunning and a faulty gut instinct when a politician constantly and continues to denigrate whole countries in the most vile and crude language possible? Do you really not think Donald Trump is a racist?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 12, 2018 13:27:55 GMT -5
Here's something else that is "embarrassingly true." You overlooked the rest of the paragraph that is kinda pertinent. Nah, It wasn't pertinent to the point I was making there, that indeed Google's fact-checking was demonstrably wrong. The rest of the bit--that you quoted--is just opinion. You are cherry-picking the part of Tom McKay's Gizmodo article you consider germane to your point and saying the rest doesn't matter when it's not. That's not really how it works. The point I quoted is entirely pertinent to the central issue of whether Google is singling out conservative websites for disparate treatment by the search engine. Either McKay's article is all opinion or its not. It doesn't turn into "just opinion" because he's defending Google (He's really not). This was also pertinent and it's not "just opinion" but a fact about right-leaning sites like The Daily Caller and it bears repeating. What part of that is inaccurate? Facts don't become invalid simply because they don't fit with the narrative and its easier to cry "bias against conservatives" than it is to call out biased conservatives. Oh, and this likely a byproduct of my own bias since I'm not a conservative White male, but wailing little man-babies like James Damore who shit where they eat are really hard to pull for.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 12, 2018 8:56:26 GMT -5
Here's something else that is "embarrassingly true." You overlooked the rest of the paragraph that is kinda pertinent. It's funny how conservative White men like James Damore piss and moan how they are being victimized by liberals and women and people of different races or gender identity as if the damn world wasn't run by conservative white men like James Damore. It must be winter. Look at all the snowflakes.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 10, 2018 18:40:12 GMT -5
Although I can't tell by your post if you're going to stay here and contribute to the forum, I want to say WELCOME BACK. I do hope you stay. I didn't respond to that thread because by the time I read it, there was already a mod note saying "enough on the typo already" But I will say that I emailed Christine right then and there and offered her my support and applause for speaking up. I can forward that email to you, NT, if you don't believe me, complete with the time stamp of 11/19/17 1:12 PM. There's no need, celawson. I have no reason to doubt your sincerity and I appreciate your support both for Christine and myself. As the most overt supporter of Donald Trump, you catch your share of crap here ( some tossed by yours truly, though not lately), so welcome to the minority. It's where the majority usually isn't, but the pizza is hot and the beer is cold, so there's that. That's not entirely my call to make, celawson. I don't make New Year's resolutions. I make commitments and one thing I've committed myself to is spending more time engaged in other activities more enriching, edifying and satisfying than posting on discussion boards to argue with strangers and nobodies. It's not the most efficient usage of my non-working hours. I'd prefer hanging with people who matter in the real world than a few haters in the online world who don't matter at all. Whether I stay or go, it doesn't add or subtract one blessed day of my life. It only eats up limited, valuable, irretrievable time. Here's something else that's funny. It's funny when Opty accuses me of " following him around the board" but his first contribution to a thread about a mass shooting is an obvious attempt to mock the person he despises most on The Colline Gate. There's a name for someone who follows someone else around a board and it rhymes with "bowl" and lurks under a bridge. Oh, yes. You've totally disproved my assertion by making your very first post back one where you dredge up a 2 month old post of mine and write a 900-word dissertation about how you don't actually stalk my posts and things people say here don't really bother you. I'm sure everyone here is now thoroughly convinced. Good for you, but you're mistaken if you believe I'm trying to convince "everyone here" of anything at all. There's nothing to disprove. The simple fact you posted a response less than two hours after I make my first post in two months says it all. Point of clarification, Opty: It is not what people say here that doesn't bother me. It is what people I respect here say that bothers me. You should have little trouble figuring out which people you are.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 10, 2018 16:09:53 GMT -5
A better name for this slimy piece of protectionism for gun runners would be the " Prostate Thyself Before the Great God of Profit and the Hell With Human Life Act." Though accurate, the title is a wee bit longish. I know I'm a bit late to the party with this thread, but I'm having a hard time (no pun intended) imagining what it means to "prostate thyself" in front of someone (in this case, a god). I'm guessing it isn't referring to some sort of medical exam? Does it mean to whip out one's junk and shake the ol' twig and berries at this god? If so, there's a great double entendre in the last line of that quote. It is also hard to imagine how a using a typo to make a dig at a member of the forum, who isn't here, isn't evidence of prepubescent behavior. It is also hard to imagine how one "makes a dig at a member of the forum" without even mentioning them or directing anything in a post to them. I was making a joke at a humorous typo. It wasn't directed at anyone nor was it taking a shot at anyone. Save the concern trolling. Nobody's falling for it. I'm not concerned, at all, just making an observation. To claim you're not mentioning or directing anything to a member after quoting their post is kind of hilarious, but hey, you do you. haggis , Angie , robeiae , cray and I pretty much live to make jokes about one another's typos. OK, mostly we make jokes about cray's typos. Be that as it may, we are still making fun of typos made years ago. Hence why we "founce" instead of "flounce," among other things. I take particular delight in jumping on Haggis's before he has time to catch and correct them. He usually catches them pretty quickly, so I have to be quick on the draw. Yes, and that IS funny, but it's a bit different when you're friends, wouldn't you say? Or are Opty and nighttimer friends, and Opty was just making a good-humored joke, and nighttimer would be chuckling and gaffawing if he were here? Seriously, don't play the daft card. That was my way of saying that I don't have a problem with the joke. Seriously, cut the drama. There's no "drama." Just me stating my opinion. It's illuminating to know that you don't have a problem with Opty's "joke." It's also irrelevant to me stating my own opinion of Opty's "joke." Christine, sometimes typos are simply funny. We all make them. The fact that NT isn't here at this moment is, I think, irrelevant in this case. It's not like he has anything to defend. Everyone knows it was a typo. Like all of us make. All the time. If, when NT comes back, he decides to, he can certainly double down and defend his word choice, but I'm thinking it's not that freaking important and that maybe we should move on, Yes, it was an objectively funny typo. But making fun of such while someone is not here, by someone who has never shown any semblance of friendship, equates to basically laughing at them "behind their back," as opposed to playful fun where all the participants are friends. Also, I must add the idea that NT would defend his word choice is objectively funny. BUT I'M NOT LAUGHING, HAGGIS. (I will deny it upon pain of death) Moving on.... I assume the use of capital letters is intended to let me know you're serious. But, hey. We're talking about a typo. And you're turning it into a capitol case because NT can't defend his typo at this time. WTF? Why is this such a big deal for you? Nobody is laughing at NT. We're chuckling over a typo. The kind of thing we all do. All the time. Like I said before. But, you know, as long as you want to move on.... The all caps was meant to be hyperbolic. There is no defending of a typo, so I thought your mention of the possibility of such was funny, especially considering NT's propensity for doubling down. That said, NT is in a temporary ban, so I think the best course of action is to not address his posts while he is gone, even if it's just all in good fun, which, I'm sorry I doubt, but I do. Imagine if you were on a board, got a temp ban, and people you were constantly at odds with (to put it mildly) poked fun at your posts in your absence. It's a cheap shot, imo. MOD NOTE: Enough on the typo already. Relax. This won't take long. I trust the person who is the butt of the joke is allowed to contribute to the festivities too? Typos can be funny. We all make 'em. It used to be part of my job to catch them in the copy a reporter turned in to go into print. Out comes the red pencil and the page begins to hemorrhage. It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it. The thing about writing online is there are no editors and spell check won't save you from your shortcomings. What's "emotionally risible" to quote a certain member is when someone parachutes into a thread nearly two weeks from its inception and their only contribution is to mock a typo made by someone who can neither correct the typo or defend themselves. Christine had it right the first time and she was sneered at for stating what everyone else should know already: Opty and I are not BFFs He doesn't like me and I don't like him and that's all we have in common. Here's something else that's funny. It's funny when Opty accuses me of " following him around the board" but his first contribution to a thread about a mass shooting is an obvious attempt to mock the person he despises most on The Colline Gate. There's a name for someone who follows someone else around a board and it rhymes with "bowl" and lurks under a bridge. It's disappointing, but not surprising only one person pointed out it's seriously uncool to go after someone who can't respond. It's also inaccurate to state, " We didn't get rid of Nighttimer." Well, actually you did get rid of Nighttimer. When someone can't view the board, can't read the board,aand can't post on the board, if that's not getting rid of them, it'll do until there's another way. Whether it's for a mandatory time-out or total exile, that's how a ban works. I was banned for a month. I chose to self-ban myself for a second month. There's one thing that comes with the extra free time being banned from a board gives you: reflection. People don't reflect as much as they react. The temptation to come back with guns blazing, F-bombs dropping and generally making a dramatic return followed by a permanent exit was immense, but that came from a sad, stupid little voice in the back of my mind and being sad and stupid, I chose to ignore it. Sometimes I'm the victim of outside forces aligning against me. Sometimes I'm my own worst enemy when I press "Enter." I piss people off. It's my nature and my mutant super power. I make no apologies for it. Some folks need to be pissed the fuck off. For example, any day Donald Trump is pissed off and whining about something being "unfair" like a 71-year-old man-baby is a goddamn good day. That is why I admire Colin Kaepernick so much. He took on the most powerful entity in sports, the mighty NFL and though they successfully blackballed him, they did not beat him, break him or make him bend his knee to them. By taking a knee, Kaepernick stood up like a man and a man must be willing to suffer and sacrifice for the unforgivable sin of telling the truth. I don't know if I'd have that kind of courage of my convictions, but I'd like to think I would. However, I'm old enough and mature enough to figure out at times the root cause of my problems is staring back at me in the mirror. Chris Rock once said about why he doubted he'd ever become so successful he'd become a conservative and join the Republicans, " Why go to a party where you're not wanted?" I don't believe in flouncing. It's a weak and pathetically transparent bid for attention. But I can take a hint. Whatever it is I bring to the party is not something that works here at The Colline Gate. It's mostly me, but it's not ALL me. Wherever I'm gone around the Internet, I find myself cast as the skunk at the garden party, the angry troll, the inconvenient truth, the uppity Black guy, THAT GUY. That's just how I roll. But that doesn't wear well everywhere. This is robeiae's board and Cassandra is a moderator on his board. I have my thoughts on how that factors into my role here, but I'll keep them to myself. Nobody sent for me and nobody needs me, so if I cause friction, hey, that's because there;s A topic this dreadful and tragic really isn't the thread and really isn't the place for this digression, but this thread got derailed two months ago by a guy with a hard-on about a guy who got the bum's rush and couldn't contain a desperate need to turn a typo into a not-so-subtle poke in the eye with a sharp stick with dog crap on the end of it. Therefore any reluctance I had about responding was mitigated by the basic unfairness of a really cheap shot. It would have been nice if someone other than the only friend I have on this board pointed it out, but that's water under the bridge now. It's a new year. It's a new chance to do better. Who knows? Maybe we'll never see a need for another thread like this again. Yeah. I don't believe that either.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 11, 2017 2:21:58 GMT -5
The idea of allowing lawsuits seems to be an end run around the 2nd amendment. We can't take away someone's 2nd amendment, so we'll just litigate them out of existence. That's seems to be the intent behind lawsuits of that nature. And that kind of arguments make someone like me, an non gun owner who would be open to reasonable laws, non sympathetic to new gun regs. I think the majority of shootings are dealing with illegal guns. There's also a culture which outlawing guns isn't going to change.
If you ban guns and have a gun amnesty collection, you would in effect be eliminating the 2nd amendment, so it's certainly not going to pass. Remember, the majority of the Dems who talk gun control always start off their spiel with, "I support the 2nd amendment, but..." There's resistance to any national registry because the pro gun side believes that's just a prelude to confiscating guns. And let's be honest, the people who call for it are the ones that want to ban guns. If we could eliminate the debate on eliminating the 2nd amendment so gun people honestly don't believe anti gun people want to take their guns, we might have a more productive discussion.
Lawsuits against gun makers/sellers or huge taxes are just an defacto ban. If you're discussing it, you're not reaching anyone who isn't for the defacto ban.
I'd like to have more of a discussion about something done at the federal level in terms of a database where if you want a gun, you get your license, if something happens say in NY that would disqualify you to holding a gun, it's know throughout the nation. Something that's not intrusive, or threatening, with language that makes it clear to those inclined to think so, that it's a prelude to taking away their guns. Something that just makes the job of enforcing existing regulations of who should or shouldn't have a gun easier to enforce across state lines. This is my way of saying I've added a helluva lot more than you are with your deliberate misstatements, exaggerations, and deceptive distortions in a lame-ass attempt to twist this into an end-run around the fucking 2nd Amendment. You were flat-out wrong with the "I think the majority of shootings are dealing with illegal guns" remark. You were flat-out wrong two days ago and you simply ignored and plowed on with an insipid deflection that no serious person has argued. MOD NOTE:Gee, what did I just say the other day (and, like, a dozen other times) about calling someone a deliberate liar versus saying that someone said something untrue? Oh, yeah. I said it was a personal attack. CUT IT OUT. NOW. If you think Vince said something untrue, by all means point it out. But leave out your belief about his bad intentions. Challenge accepted. I don't think Vince said something untrue. I know Vince said something untrue. No less than three times Vince has asserted allowing lawsuits against gun manufactures or a tax on them to pay for the devastating medical costs created by the illicit usage of their weapons would be circumventing the Second Amendment, if not lead to its outright demise through the way of a backdoor ban on guns. This is made-up hype, hyperbole, and hysteria on Vince's part. Rather than assume why this is go back and reference the original Slate article by Mark Joseph Stern and you'll see it does not propose a ban on guns. It suggests gun manufacturers should be as legally culpable as drug or auto manufacturers are for their products.
Radical, man! What a concept! Making gun manufacturers foot the bill for those injured by their product? That's crazy talk! Why, you might as well force car manufacturers legally liable when some dumb bastard gets killed in one of their crappy cars or cigarette manufacturers when Joe Six-pack develops Stage 3 lung cancer from smoking six packs of coffin nails every day for 20 years. Congress, kneeling like the good boot-licking lackeys they are to the NRA, Smith & Wesson, O.F. Mossburg & Sons and other gun manufacturers, opened wide and swallowed deep a totally bullshit and completely unnecessary bit of protectionist legislature to give the makers of power tools for bat-shit crazy killers a blanket protection from lawsuits. A protection no other business in America enjoys. (Though it is possible the hundreds who survived the Las Vegas killbox, may have a path forward around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act). A better name for this slimy piece of protectionism for gun runners would be the "Prostate Thyself Before the Great God of Profit and the Hell With Human Life Act." Though accurate, the title is a wee bit longish. Back to Vince's Second Amendment ban that literally not one person in this thread has proposed. Not Poet in A Hat. Not Maxinquaye. Not Christine. Not even me. Why would anyone propose dumping the Second Amendment when there is a intensely conservative Republican majority in both Houses of Congress? No matter how many co-sponsors a Democrat could gather to junk the Second Amendment, pro-gun/NRA-owned Republicans would kill it in its infancy. If anti-gun forces haven't been successful in getting rid of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act after over a decade that includes years of Democratic control of one or both houses of Congress and the White House, it's certainly not going to happen now and if you can't trash a bad law, odds are you're not going to have any better luck ridding the country of a badly misunderstood and misapplied Constitutional amendment. This is what is known as a non-starter. Stern's essay mentions the Second Amendment exactly once and only in reference to how states could tax gun manufacturers from the pain their product produces. A "ban" on guns or an "end-run" around the Second Amendment isn't even on the table. It's not even in the same room. The only "ban" in Stern's essay is the bankruptcy some survivors will face from being unable to pay their catastrophically high medical bills due to surviving a shooting spree and how state attorney generals banded together to sue tobacco manufacturers for the pain and suffering caused by their product. Though this does raise a subsequent question which is germane to this specific discussion about Vince's haunting terror of billion dollar gun manufacturers being taxed and sued out of existence over the carnage caused by their product, and it's this. If Stern isn't talking about banning guns and the Second Amendment as well and nobody in this thread is either, then where is Vince getting this absurd notion from? As I am not Vince's Brain, I can only hazard a guess, but based upon what he's posted in this thread, it's a pretty good guess. He got it from nowhere. He just made it up. Yeah, that "So is this your way of admitting you have nothing to add to the discussion, or what?" was real reasonably civil. I don't see it that way, but apparently you do. I disagree that he's arguing in good faith. There's nothing "good faith" about arguing against a point Vince himself introduced to the thread. When he talks about gun bans, nobody has introduced that idea to the debate but Vince. If he's focusing on different points than I am, that's cool, but when he's stapling onto Stern's essay a contention Stern never made himself, I have a problem with that because by definition that is a distortion and a deliberate misstatement. Of course, Vince can prove me wrong quite easily. Simply produce the quote in this thread or in Stern's essay which called for banning guns and ending the Second Amendment. Okie dokie, but you said what we're supposed to do if it is the former. You didn't say what we're supposed to do if it is the latter. You didn't say what we're supposed to do when a person seems to have misunderstood some word, phrase, analogy, or in this case, an entire article and shift the focus to it instead of the subject. This is a ploy to derail the topic away from the legal protections Congress gave to gun manufactures to instead divert those who desire more stringent gun restrictions and laws into instead defending the purposely misunderstood word, phrase, analogy or article instead of the case at hand. Now obviously, I can't say with 100 percent certainly Vince purposely misunderstood the words, phrases, analogies or Stern's entire article. What I can say is Vince is arguing with an argument he brought to this thread. You said, "Did person x genuinely say something untrue or contradictory, or is it simply my belief that no person could possibly believe that?" and said we should demonstrate the untrue contractions. I have done so. As Daniel P. Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." The fact is nobody has seriously come out in favor of a gun ban and repealing the Second Amendment. The burden of proof is now on Vince to prove there is such a sentiment afoot. Now what?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 10, 2017 1:15:50 GMT -5
I think the majority of shootings are dealing with illegal guns.
More Than 80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings Obtained LegallyBut what? Here. I'll finish your sentence. "I support the 2nd Amendment, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you need an arsenal or you should be allowed to buy a gun if you're fucking nuts or you've committed violent acts against your own family like cracking your stepson's skull." Yeah, that's really extreme, Vince. it's also a crap argument. NOBODY is seriously proposing eliminating the 2nd Amendment because it isn't going to happen. What is happening is the same old, tired-ass, reactionary scare tactics rhetoric, gun defenders like you barf up, but you're do it over an ever-growing stack of bullet-riddle corpses. You know you're real quick to criticize any idea to end the shield from legal liability of gun manufacturers and even faster to say even discussing it isn't reaching anyone who isn't for a defacto ban. Which it's not. Gun manufacturers faced lawsuits all the way until 2005 and somehow they survived. Now you're all worried that an $8 billion dollar business that makes a killing out of Americans killing each other is going to fold up and blow away if they lose a special protection they never should have been given? I submit its you who is unreasonable and you who isn't interested in a more productive discussion. It's easy for you shit all over a reasonable proposal. It's impossible for you to come up with a better one. So is this your way of admitting you have nothing to add to the discussion, or what? This is my way of acknowledging you have added nothing to the discussion. This is my way of saying I've added a helluva lot more than you are with your deliberate misstatements, exaggerations, and deceptive distortions in a lame-ass attempt to twist this into an end-run around the fucking 2nd Amendment. You were flat-out wrong with the "I think the majority of shootings are dealing with illegal guns" remark. You were flat-out wrong two days ago and you simply ignored and plowed on with an insipid deflection that no serious person has argued. This is my way of noting you have offered no reasonable or viable alternatives, but you are very good at filling up posts with nothing but rehashed rhetoric and tired talking points from gun extremists. This is my way of admitting it's a waste of time to expect a "productive discussion" with someone who isn't looking to have one. This is my way of shrugging as you whine over its not a productive discussion unless its something you already agree on. This is my way of admitting it is counter-productive to attempt to enter into a discussion with anybody who finds lawsuits against gun manufacturers abhorrent but not allowing psycho trash easy access to high-powered weapons to blow away parishioners. You're really good on how productive an AR-15 is in turning live human beings into dead ones. Go ahead, Vince. Tell Miss Santos what your plan is. Make it good. Or at least make it better than we have to allow nuts to get guns because the 2nd Amendment blah blah blah.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 9, 2017 13:48:17 GMT -5
I'd like to have more of a discussion about something done at the federal level in terms of a database where if you want a gun, you get your license, if something happens say in NY that would disqualify you to holding a gun, it's know throughout the nation. Something that's not intrusive, or threatening, with language that makes it clear to those inclined to think so, that it's a prelude to taking away their guns. Something that just makes the job of enforcing existing regulations of who should or shouldn't have a gun easier to enforce across state lines. Here's a discussion for you. If you're so worried about guns being taken away, let's replace them with thoughts and prayers. Problem solved. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 9, 2017 11:47:28 GMT -5
<abbr title="Nov 8, 2017 23:45:43 GMT -5" data-timestamp="1510202743000" class="o-timestamp time">Nov 8, 2017 23:45:43 GMT -5</abbr> nighttimer said: Yeah. It kinda does. Robert Scott Marshall, a 56-year-old male. Karen Sue Marshall, a 56-year-old female. Keith Allen Braden, a 62-year-old male. Tara E. McNulty, a 33-year-old female. Annabelle Renae Pomeroy, a 14-year-old female. Peggy Lynn Warden, a 56-year-old female. Dennis Neil Johnson Sr., a 77-year-old male. Sara Johns Johnson, a 68-year-old female. Lula Woicinski White, a 71-year-old female. Joann Lookingbill Ward, a 30-year-old female. Brooke Bryanne Ward, a 5-year-old female. Robert Michael Corrigan, a 51-year-old male. Shani Louise Corrigan, a 51-year-old female. Therese Sagan Rodriguez, a 66-year-old female. Ricardo Cardona Rodriguez, a 64-year-old male. Haley Krueger, a 16-year-old female. Emily Garcia, a 7-year-old female. She died at a hospital. Emily Rose Hill, an 11-year-old female. Gregory Lynn Hill, a 13-year-old male. Megan Gail Hill, a 9-year-old female. Marc Daniel Holcombe, a 36-year-old male. Noah Holcombe, a 1-year-old female. Karla Plain Holcombe, a 58-year-old female. John Bryan Holcombe, a 60-year-old male. Crystal Marie Holcombe, a pregnant 36-year-old female. Carlin Brite “Billy Bob” Holcombe, the unborn baby of Crystal Holcombe, gender unknown. What is posting a list of victims supposed to prove? If you don't know me telling you isn't going to help. People are assholes. That's good for you. What's it got to do with me? No, you're not. You're not me and you don't know what I know and you don't react to things the way I do and you never ever will. That's you being obnoxiously presumptuous. That's what I'm talking about here. If you don't want to talk about it talk to someone else. You're tap dancing. The video. Dark or sick?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 8, 2017 23:49:32 GMT -5
I do not plan to change my modding style. Even if its wrong? Or are you incapable of making a mistake? Only God got it right the first time and He still created aardvarks.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 8, 2017 23:45:43 GMT -5
Okay, look - after horrific tragedies, some people are going to react inappropriately and while that deserves calling out, it is human nature that people are often not at their best when reacting in anger, shock, and horror. So I think rob is making rather too much of Wil Wheaton and Keith Olbermann's tweets - yes, they were insensitive, but not everyone has a public relations manager to keep them from tweeting while emotions are running hot. (Or at all - what Wil Wheaton tweets after a mass shooting pales in comparison to what Trump tweets on a daily basis.) But you're making rather too much of using the word "funny" in proximity to a tragedy. Like, you know perfectly well that rob was not saying that a church full of dead people was "funny" and picking out that word was just a cheap potshot. Also, dark humor is a thing. It may not be your thing, but it doesn't make someone an evil person because they get snarky even in the midst of tragedy. Yeah. It kinda does. Robert Scott Marshall, a 56-year-old male. Karen Sue Marshall, a 56-year-old female. Keith Allen Braden, a 62-year-old male. Tara E. McNulty, a 33-year-old female. Annabelle Renae Pomeroy, a 14-year-old female. Peggy Lynn Warden, a 56-year-old female. Dennis Neil Johnson Sr., a 77-year-old male. Sara Johns Johnson, a 68-year-old female. Lula Woicinski White, a 71-year-old female. Joann Lookingbill Ward, a 30-year-old female. Brooke Bryanne Ward, a 5-year-old female. Robert Michael Corrigan, a 51-year-old male. Shani Louise Corrigan, a 51-year-old female. Therese Sagan Rodriguez, a 66-year-old female. Ricardo Cardona Rodriguez, a 64-year-old male. Haley Krueger, a 16-year-old female. Emily Garcia, a 7-year-old female. She died at a hospital. Emily Rose Hill, an 11-year-old female. Gregory Lynn Hill, a 13-year-old male. Megan Gail Hill, a 9-year-old female. Marc Daniel Holcombe, a 36-year-old male. Noah Holcombe, a 1-year-old female. Karla Plain Holcombe, a 58-year-old female. John Bryan Holcombe, a 60-year-old male. Crystal Marie Holcombe, a pregnant 36-year-old female. Carlin Brite “Billy Bob” Holcombe, the unborn baby of Crystal Holcombe, gender unknown.
Don't try to tell me what I'm making too much of. You're unqualified for that. Don't try to tell me what I know "perfectly well." You're even less qualified for that. Dark humor is one thing. Sick humor is another. What you call "dark" I call "sick" and its not subject to your agreement or disagreement. There is video of Devin Kelley walking through the church shooting men, women, children and infants in the head. Now in your opinion, would accessing and uploading the video to the web be "dark" or "sick?" You make the call, o sanctimonious one. My vote is "sick." Sick as fuck, but hey, I might be making rather too much of it.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 8, 2017 23:30:26 GMT -5
A car is meant to drive, but not to drive into people as happened last week in NYC. A gun is meant to shoot, not to commit murder, mass or otherwise. The idea of allowing lawsuits seems to be an end run around the 2nd amendment. We can't take away someone's 2nd amendment, so we'll just litigate them out of existence. That's seems to be the intent behind lawsuits of that nature. And that kind of arguments make someone like me, an non gun owner who would be open to reasonable laws, non sympathetic to new gun regs. And yes, the booze is tongue in cheek, but to make the point. Many things can be used to hurt or kill, but guns are singled out where the person using the weapon isn't the sole person responsible for the use of it in an illegal way. This is such a crock of utter shit. WHY should gun manufacturers enjoy a protection NO OTHER BUSINESS IN AMERICA has? Because of the fucking 2nd Amendment or because of the fucking NRA? A gun is not meant to shoot. A gun is meant to kill. You don't use it to hammer nails or club a deer. You buy a gun because you either really enjoy target-shooting or you may want to use it to kill someone. That's ALL a gun is for. I don't give a damn about what a non-gun owner who wants to blow off the next killing spree because he thinks Colt deserves to be lawsuit-free thinks is a "reasonable law" and who needs your sympathy? If you have none for those dead kids at Sandy Hook back in 2012, why would you have any for the dead kids at Sutherland Springs. I think the majority of shootings are dealing with illegal guns. There's also a culture which outlawing guns isn't going to change.
More Than 80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings Obtained LegallyBut what? Here. I'll finish your sentence. "I support the 2nd Amendment, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you need an arsenal or you should be allowed to buy a gun if you're fucking nuts or you've committed violent acts against your own family like cracking your stepson's skull." Yeah, that's really extreme, Vince. it's also a crap argument. NOBODY is seriously proposing eliminating the 2nd Amendment because it isn't going to happen. What is happening is the same old, tired-ass, reactionary scare tactics rhetoric, gun defenders like you barf up, but you're do it over an ever-growing stack of bullet-riddle corpses. You know you're real quick to criticize any idea to end the shield from legal liability of gun manufacturers and even faster to say even discussing it isn't reaching anyone who isn't for a defacto ban. Which it's not. Gun manufacturers faced lawsuits all the way until 2005 and somehow they survived. Now you're all worried that an $8 billion dollar business that makes a killing out of Americans killing each other is going to fold up and blow away if they lose a special protection they never should have been given? I submit its you who is unreasonable and you who isn't interested in a more productive discussion. It's easy for you shit all over a reasonable proposal. It's impossible for you to come up with a better one. <abbr data-timestamp="1510148137000" class="o-timestamp time" title="Nov 8, 2017 8:35:37 GMT -5">Nov 8, 2017 8:35:37 GMT -5</abbr> Vince524 said: Because, nobody is looking to put other businesses out of business for doing their job by the rules. If a gun seller doesn't follow the law, you have a case. If a gun maker makes a defective weapon, that's different.
If a man legally buys a gun then uses it to knock over a store, kill their ex or shoot up a church, the guy who followed the law in making the gun or selling the gun isn't at fault. If you allow that, you allow an end run around the 2nd amendment. That's the reason why people want to sue the gun makers and sellers, isn't it? To stop the making and selling of guns that are legal. Have a case why that particular gun shouldn't be legal to make or sell, change the law. Don't punish the guy following the law.
Your weasel words are just a roundabout way of repeating what I already said and you ignored: It's easy for you shit all over a reasonable proposal. It's impossible for you to come up with a better one. Repeating a lie about ending the 2nd Amendment isn't going to make it true. You don't want solutions. You just want your damn guns. Wil Weaton is an actor who played Wesley Crusher on Star Trek TNG and has appeared often as himself on Big Bang Theory. For the record, he apologized right after he sent that tweet. For the record I didn't watch either one of those shows and don't care who Will Wheaton is or what he has to say. So what? I'm not running for office and I don't need you to tune in or out to anything I say. If someone is feeling they are being shamed by being told their thoughts and prayers are weak sauce, that's their problem. I'm not looking for converts or confirmation. I tried to offer up a way for victims of gun violence to be able to sue gun manufactures. I don't care if that helps or hurt people who deliberately distort a reasonable proposal with warmed-over NRA talking points. Nobody here is claiming a hashtag can save the word because it can't, but bullshit "thoughts and prayers" ain't saving it either.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 8, 2017 12:38:32 GMT -5
Tongue-in-cheek? These were 26 human beings from ages 17 months to 77 years old slaughtered in a house of worship and you want to be flippant TWO DAYS after a massacre? If it's too early to discuss gun control then it's too early to crack wise about dead babe. Oh, please. Nowhere have I said anything about it being too early to discuss something. And my comment had nothing to do with the people who were killed. If you're so emotionally feeble that you can't separate such things, then perhaps you should avoid all human contact for a week or two, until you can manage to process things. A pathetic attempt to pat yourself on the back for your superior empathy, even as you shit on anyone else who dares to show their empathy by offering thought and prayers. Newsflash, NT: it's true that thoughts and prayers aren't changing anything, but neither are your--and others--faux outrage fests on that subject. This is the company you're keeping, models of compassion all: Side note: you know what's funny? A lot of the people I see who are all ragey over "thoughts and prayers" seem to really like hashtag activism, which strikes me as not all that removed from an expression of sympathy ("thniking of you," "sending positive thought," etc.), more often than not Side note: Nothing's funny about this. I didn't know Keith Olbermann, Wil Wheaton and whomever that last guy is were members of The Colline Gate, but even if they are, I keep my own company. The company that doesn't find the funny in dead babies. Dear Lord, the nightmares that await those first-responders. I'm not "emotionally feeble" robeiae. I'm just not emotionally callous to introduce lame attempts at humor into a thread where nothing is funny. Your own sense of "humor" may be calibrated somewhat differently. And "thoughts and prayers" are still useless bullshit. 26 people were butchered like cattle in God's house. If the prayers they sent to God went unanswered, it's not likely yours are going to be heard.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 8, 2017 12:23:00 GMT -5
No voice here has been "squelched" from expressing a point of view unless that point of view was what a jerk another member was. I, like Amadan, have experienced private mod slaps used to silence me from simply expressing a dissenting viewpoint. Done secretively like that, the rest of the forum doesn't know. They know only that a voice dropped out. Making it private doesn't reduce bias. It hides it. And in doing so, encourages it. Also, here there is no way to send a private mod note except by writing a time-consuming PM pointing to the thread and starting a dialogue about it every time someone is a jerk. I will not do it that way, period. How you do whatever you do as a mod is a matter between you and robeiae. However, if you are going to introduce your previous bad experiences from other places here, then you've opened the door for everybody else to play too. I have experienced having a point-of-view squelched by moderators who were too quick on the trigger, too p.c., too sensitive, too biased, too something to handle their responsibility in a responsible way. Ripping someone a new asshole is best done one-on-one and privately so it doesn't become a public shitshow, but that's just my opinion. As far as a PM being "time-consuming," so is writing a public mod slap. It all depends on how one feels their time is best spent. I consider my experiences as equally valid as yours or Amadan.
|
|