Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 10:39am PT
|
Norton - this is too funny... but the reallly funny part is... it's true!!!
"Lets try another one:
Republican Larry Craig is a known HOMOSEXUAL.
Conclusion: ALL Republicans are closet c*#k sucking homos"
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 10:41am PT
|
Also..I don't blame Sarah Palin for this sad, tragic event. I do blame her for choice of words and cross-hairs remarks. She really isn't that smart and the longer she stays in the public eye the more she is going to be exposed.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 11:47am PT
|
bob
do you blame democrat senatorial candidate from ARIZONA harry mitchell for this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA
do you blame the dncc for their bullseye campaign map?
do you blame bill maher for suggesting that killing dick cheney would save lives?
do you blame paul krugman for suggesting that joe leiberman be hanged in effigy?
do you blame democrat governor joe manchin for this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJORBRpOPM
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 11:49am PT
|
some helpful advice for the anti-gun libs:
January 13, 2011 4:00 A.M.
How to Write About Firearms
A guide for liberal columnists who don’t want to sound stupid about guns.
Usually, it’s easy for a concerned citizen to find a like-minded pundit with something interesting to say about the political controversy du jour. Except, that is, when the citizen is liberal and the controversy involves guns. If a left-of-center reader turned to his favorite pundits this week to find out what to think about the Tucson massacre and gun laws, he’d have read nothing but clichés and half-truths.
There are at least two reasons for this. First is that most of these columnists have no firsthand knowledge of guns or gun culture. Second is that they haven’t bothered to read any of the countless academic studies of gun control that have come out since John Lott published More Guns, Less Crime in 1998. Perhaps they don’t want to slog through lots of statistics, or perhaps they just don’t care about the issue.
As a gun owner and hunter, and as someone who’s spent a fair amount of time thinking and writing about the legal and empirical debates that surround guns, I’m here to help. Here are some quick and easy tips for anti-gun columnists — if you follow them, you’ll still be wrong, but at least you won’t sound so ridiculous.
1. Don’t assume criminals follow laws.
In a way, this goes right to the heart of the gun-control debate. It is a conservative talking point that only the law-abiding will follow — and thus be disarmed by — gun laws.
I’m not asking you to swallow this reasoning whole. I’m just asking that you think twice before contradicting it — especially if you’re Eugene Robinson, who recently wrote about how the Tucson shooting shows that “we must decide that allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon, no questions asked, is just crazy.” (Or, more frighteningly, Rep. Peter King [R., N.Y.], who says he’s going to introduce a law that would simply make it illegal to bring a gun near a public official.)
Jared Loughner left his house that day intending to assassinate Representative Giffords. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a more restrictive concealed-carry regime would have changed that. If he was willing to violate laws against murder, he was willing to violate laws against concealed carry. Suggesting otherwise just shows that you haven’t bothered to think things through.
2. If you’re going to write that a certain kind of gun is particularly dangerous, consult someone who knows something about guns first. Brady Campaign spokesmen don’t count.
The gun Loughner used was a semiautomatic 9mm Glock — a weapon that countless people own for various reasons, including target shooting and self-defense. These guns typically come with ten-round magazines, but they’re capable of accepting larger ones. The fact that they’re “semiautomatic” means they fire one bullet for each pull of the trigger. I own a very similar handgun myself (a 9mm Ruger P95), along with a 30-round magazine; if I fill the magazine before I get to the shooting range, it cuts down on the time I spend reloading on-site.
But Alan Webber complains in the Washington Post about “semi-automatic handguns that serve only one purpose — to shoot and kill innocent people.” The New York Times’s Gail Collins refers to Loughner’s gun as distinct from a “regular pistol,” the kind “most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms.” Semiautomatic handguns are “extremely easy to fire over and over” and can carry 30-round magazines, she explains.
Perhaps the most egregious example of this came from someone who knew better: the Brady Campaign’s president, Paul Helmke, who in Collins’s column is quoted claiming that 9mm semiautomatics are “not suited for hunting or personal protection” and that “what it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.” If 9mm Glocks aren’t suited for protecting oneself and others, someone should tell the nation’s police departments, many of which use them — and many more of which use .40-caliber Glocks, which are similar but slightly more powerful.
3. Don’t prattle on about “hunting” or “sport” — and more generally, don’t forget about self-defense.
Robinson is an offender on this count: “We must recognize the obvious distinction between rifles, shotguns and target pistols used for sport on the one hand, and semiautomatic handguns designed for killing people on the other.” (An aside: I think it’s less than obvious that my pistol, which I love shooting at targets, is not suitable for “sport,” and that traditional target pistols are not suitable for killing people.)
But the prize goes to Collins, who actually suggests that gun-grabbers and gun-rights supporters should cooperate to pass laws based on this distinction: “We should be able to find a way to accommodate the strong desire in many parts of the country for easy access to firearms with sane regulation of the kinds of weapons that make it easiest for crazy people to create mass slaughter.”
Sorry, but no. It’s true that many gun-rights enthusiasts are also hunters, but the “strong desire” to preserve gun rights stems from the need for self-defense, not for killing Bambi. We’re actually most protective of guns that are designed to kill people — because we want them in case we need to kill someone to defend ourselves or our families. The Supreme Court has affirmed our Second Amendment right to keep handguns in our homes for this purpose.
And we do use guns for self-defense. Various surveys come to various numbers, but it’s clear that thousands — possibly hundreds of thousands — of defensive gun uses occur every year. And that’s not even counting the crimes that don’t happen because criminals are afraid their victims might be armed.
You can make a plausible case that keeping guns away from law-abiding citizens will keep guns away from some criminals, too — many guns are stolen every year — but this must be weighed against the good that comes from responsible gun ownership. When you write a column about guns — no matter what side you’re on — you need to evaluate this tradeoff.
4. When you think about mental health, think about due process, too.
In the last day or so, some evidence has come to light indicating that the police may have dropped the ball — if they had followed up on some complaints that were made against Loughner, they may have been able to prosecute him for a crime or force him to accept mental-health treatment. Had they done so, it’s possible he would have ended up in the database of people who are not allowed to buy guns, and it’s even possible that he wouldn’t have been able to get a gun illegally (given that we know of no underworld ties or friends who would have bought a firearm for him).
But some liberals seem to think he should have been turned down for the gun solely on the grounds that people found him creepy or menacing. Robinson notes that
Loughner reportedly had a history of drug use and bizarre behavior. Students and a teacher at a community college that Loughner briefly attended found him so erratic, confused, menacing and potentially violent that they persuaded college authorities to bar him from campus pending a psychiatric exam.
He follows with: “Yet on Nov. 30, he was able to walk into Sportsman’s Warehouse in Tucson and purchase the weapon” (emphasis added), as though the judgments of “students,” “a teacher,” and “college authorities” should be sufficient to deprive one of constitutional rights.
Richard Cohen thinks that gun buyers should face “real questions” in addition to a background check. He facetiously proposes the following:
Do you think the government controls grammar and grammar controls the universe? Have you been babbling in class and can you hold a job? Why do you want this gun? Do you, perhaps, want to kill someone? Do you want a Glock 19 because it was one of two handguns used in the Virginia Tech massacre (32 killed, one suicide), and would you please state the name of your intended victim on the form provided?
A constitutional right cannot be revoked for “babbling in class” or failing to “hold a job,” or even for holding out-there beliefs — and though these questions aren’t asked in seriousness, it’s hard to imagine what questions would have gotten Loughner to confess to being a homicidal maniac, or why a gun seller (or government bureaucrat) should be presumed capable of judging the sanity of a customer when rights are at stake.
Yes, we should have a better process for keeping guns away from dangerous and imbalanced people, but we have to stay away from a very slippery slope: By one estimate based on high-school students, nearly one-quarter of people are mentally ill in some sense of the term. Very few of them are potentially violent.
There is room for debate about gun control. The Supreme Court has left many restrictions on the table. But when left-wing columnists — the people many liberals rely on for opinions — can’t stop spouting the same clichés they’ve been filling their columns with for decades, we cannot have a useful conversation. They need to improve their output, and these rules will help them move in that direction.
— Robert VerBruggen, an NR associate editor, runs the Phi Beta Cons blog.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 12:04pm PT
|
uh-oh...another hysterical reaction to the az shootings, this time from the la times:
"On the other hand, some analysts say Loughner had an equal number of leftist inspirations.
"The Communist Manifesto" is one of the books he favored, and a former high school friend reported on Twitter that Loughner was a "pot head" whose tastes ran to Jimi Hendrix, the Doors and Anti-Flag a radical leftist punk band whose music focuses on themes of corporate greed, U.S. foreign policy and opposition to war."
wait...what? the la times is suggesting that loughner might have been inspired by LEFTIST ideology?
ok, jhedge, explain how palin is a leftist
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 12:19pm PT
|
Let me add my praise of the President's speech. It perfectly fit the occasioin.
JOhn
John, will all due respect, I thought the thing stank....
The president did give a somewhat good 'speech'. But he always does. Did you watch the body language of Giffords' husband contrasted with Michelle and Barrack? The best speech was by Fernandez, the intern.
I didn't like the 'praise' everybody was talking about. IT'S A MEMORIAL TO THOSE WHO DIED!!! Quit applauding and cheering!!!!
I think Hernandez could be a good leader. He saw this and rejected the praise. He was truly mournful and saddened.
WTF was up with the Mexican-Indian dude too???? WTF???
EDIT to correct name of the intern.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 12:24pm PT
|
I agree, Blue.
Good summary
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 12:34pm PT
|
Yeah, Norton, I was yelling at the t.v. again last night. "Why are you people cheering???"
It was more a public speaker rally than a memorial. I felt bad for the families of the deceased.
It was at a college, so I guess that is the main factor. But you have to ask yourself why college 'kids' can't realize a memorial and can't express remorse instead of glee for shallow words intended to 'unite'.
It wasn't a night for unity. It was a night to remember those who were murdered in cold blood by a psycho. People went to talk to their representative and even took their children. Yet, they were killed.
No applause, please. Iwas hoping Hernandez was going to say that. I think he almost did. He looked a bit stunned at the applause.
Also notice, he had no cue-cards, notes, or teleprompters. He spoke with utter sincerity. I thought it was very profound and deep.
He is a genuine guy. And I'll remember that for a long time....
Edit to correct Hernandez' name
link to video;
http://news.lalate.com/2011/01/12/daniel-hernandez-jr-memorial-speech-gets-standing-ovation/
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 01:01pm PT
|
I agree Fattrad.
Yes it was much like a college pep rally, lots of cheerleaders.
And of course, absolutely NO respect of any kind for the grieving.
YOU are incredibly biased, unfair, and ignorant.
Only a real horse's ass would post what you did.
And you are. Both ignorant and an ass.
While Bluering and I may differ on some things, he has the mature civility you lack.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 01:11pm PT
|
DaftRat posted...Time to take on the terrorist funding Saudi's, Iranians, etc.
Jeffe, Obama can't because the Repugs wont let him take on the Bush Family. And let's be real they are bed buddies.
Obama did a great thing and you all know it.
Though I am sure you Right WingNuts thought Palin's whinny victim speech was brilliant and compelling.
You knuckle dragging mouth breathers are just too much.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 01:14pm PT
|
Obama did a great thing and you all know it.
What did he do???
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 01:14pm PT
|
Have any of you ever seen the damage real bookworms do to books and archives. Looks like rotted swiss cheese.
Oddly, not unlike what the surreal Bookworm does to the forum.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 01:30pm PT
|
Bookworm?
He is a real dichotomy and a hypocrite.
He is a State employee and a union member.
He chose the security of a big government job over the uncertainty in the private sector.
He lives off the Nanny State.
His healthcare is administered by big government.
His future pension checks will come from big government.
And despite all the above, he constantly bashed the same big government that he
sucks off the tit of.
Now Bluering: You know what you get. He works in the private sector.
He is upfront about his own prejudices and biases.
He is not continually partisan and has shown his sense of fairness.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 01:48pm PT
|
Of course, I appreciate both Bluering's and Bookworm's posts. It disappoints me, though, that the normal response to Bookworm's posts is an ad hominem attack on Bookworm, rather than an attempt to contradict the arguments he presents.
Bluering,
I felt Obama was "presidential," to the point where he not only was my President, but he felt like it, too. Much the same as George W. Bush after the 9/11 attack. In situations like these, the country needs to feel like its political leaders rose above partisanship, and speak for the nation. I felt like Obama rose to the occasion.
John
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 02:24pm PT
|
"an ad hominem attack on Bookworm, rather than an attempt to contradict the arguments he presents."
ad hominem attacks serve only to lower one. That said I have to make an observation.
A very great ill was engendered when Nixon's southern strategy was put in motion and when ties to fundamentalist movements were sealed. If you look at discussions on ST and political discussions generally you have to conclude that politics is now
a belief system.
The epithet "socialist" is heard over and over. People are expected to react as programmed to such words or face expulsion from their "order." Even members of Congress are threatened with expulsion for "bad behavior".
A consequence? In extreme cases
logic is useless.
And when one side is this way, it takes special character for the other side to abstain.
A death spiral results regardless of where the practice originated.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 02:37pm PT
|
"He is a real dichotomy and a hypocrite."
where to begin?
"He is a State employee and a union member."
yes, i'm a public school teacher; now, we don't have "unions", technically, but i am a member of a teachers' "association"...it's a bitter pill to swallow, but it's thug money...i joined because i had an "issue" with a principal and soon realized that i wasn't just facing the principal but the whole bureaucratic machine...so i followed barry's advice and hired a gun to take to a knife fight...i won; without the association, i would have lost and my career would have suffered...i oppose the political influence of the unions and other lobbyists just like i oppose corruption in the unions and corporations and government
"He chose the security of a big government job over the uncertainty in the private sector."
or one might say i gave up a potentially lucrative career in the private sector (marketing and public relations) to pursue my passion and serve my community but, you're right, that sounds so....liberal
btw, do you feel the same disdain for cops and firefighters who also may be conservative? what about the military?
"He lives off the Nanny State."
no, i earn my salary and pay my bills
"His healthcare is administered by big government."
i pay for my health care, too
"His future pension checks will come from big government."
virginia has one of the most efficiently managed pension plans in the nation, but i'm prepared to make my sacrifices, too...i certainly don't count on social security so i have an ira, as well
dichotomy? well, there are fewer conservative teachers so i guess that's true...i guess in your brave new world there would be no disagreement
hypocrite? because i work for the government and call for reductions in government spending? i think you need to check a dictionary
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 02:48pm PT
|
Oh now Booky
I stand by everything I said.
You ARE a hypocrite.
Your job security, your healthcare, your paycheck and your pension ALL are either paid
for or administered by government.
You are a NANNY STATE employee.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 03:18pm PT
|
jstan,
I agree that politics is a system of beliefs, but I think we could really say that for many it's more like a religion. I have a system of beliefs that allows my heroes to be human, and therefore make mistakes. My belief system also allows my political opponents to be human too, and often be correct. The "religious," in contrast, don't want to hear, read, think about, or encounter anything contrary to their prior beliefs.
There are really two sub-threads, at least, on this thread. The title had a lot of Craig's tongue firmly in his cheek, whether he admits it or not (Have you met anyone who's wrong on everything? If so, I'd follow him or her around, do the opposite, and be correct (those on my side of the political fence would say "right") all the time.)
Much of the commentary follows this "banter" mode. There are a great many posts in every frequency of the political spectrum that concede nothing, make no attempt to acknowledge common ground, and therefore engender little serious debates. This gives it a "religious" tone.
The second sub-thread involves real give-and-take discussion. Yours always do, as illustrated by the pains you went through to get a discussion going on regulation. On "my" side of the debate, Ksolem, among many others, is a great example of the "discussion" style -- no gratuitous insults, only well-reasoned replies. There are a great many with whom I disagree who also exemplify this style, but one who I particularly miss of late is apogee. There are also plenty of us (including me) who do some of both.
If I could call this "discussion" sub-thread "signal," and the "banter" sub-thread "noise," I suspect you and I both would say that the signal-to-noise ratio is rather low at times, but I can still discern intelligable communication through the noise. Thanks to you, and to everyone else, who try to keep the "signal" strong.
My personal theory is that the QRN (ham radio talk for noise) is worse in the evenings. During the day, too many of us have only limited time, so we can't spew as much. During the evening, for, um, whatever reason, posters are less inhibited.
John
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 03:34pm PT
|
Book worm wrote: yes, i'm a public school teacher; now, we don't have "unions", technically, but i am a member of a teachers' "association"...it's a bitter pill to swallow, but it's thug money...i joined because i had an "issue" with a principal and soon realized that i wasn't just facing the principal but the whole bureaucratic machine...so i followed barry's advice and hired a gun to take to a knife fight...i won; without the association, i would have lost and my career would have suffered...i oppose the political influence of the unions and other lobbyists just like i oppose corruption in the unions and corporations and government
What a hypocrite...only use them when it benefits you.
All the sh#t you whine about you used them to save your own ass.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 03:46pm PT
|
The truth will out.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!