The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

This forum is for talking about non-music-related stuff that the DBT fanbase might be interested in. This is not the place for inside jokes and BS. Take that crap to some other board.

Moderators: Jonicont, mark lynn, Maluca3, Tequila Cowboy, BigTom, CooleyGirl, olwiggum

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by beantownbubba »

This!!:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... MzgwMjY0S0

It's time to stop pretending that the "grownups" will control Trump. It's time to stop pretending that the alleged grownups have any interest in controlling Trump. It's time to realize that the alleged grownups, including especially McConnell & Ryan, are part of the problem and no part of the solution. This is the state of the nation in a nutshell.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
pearlbeer
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:56 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by pearlbeer »

“Trump’s eager publication of the memo was expected. Yet his action crossed a line: from criticism of the FBI to executive action designed to undermine an ongoing investigation. Trump seems to be testing the waters for direct action against the FBI by testing the limits of what his Republican followers will stomach. So far, there are no limits.”

— Michael Gerson, Washington Post columnist and former top aide to President George W. Bush


We need to impose the limits we can - the term of these bastards service.
Love each other, Motherfuckers!

Zip City
Posts: 17313
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by Zip City »

Image
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever

User avatar
whatwouldcooleydo?
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Desolation Row
Contact:

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by whatwouldcooleydo? »

Image
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by beantownbubba »

Adapted from a facebook post:

Children are dead. Nuance must die. Subtlety must die.

It's simple: There can be only black and white, no gray, no uncertainty, no waffling. Kids or guns?

It's simple: The NRA has declared war on our children. That's not a metaphor and I don't say it lightly. But by acting the way they do, by taking the positions that they do, by treating the level of violence and number of violent incidents as acceptable they are in fact making war on our children. Don't tell me "it's complicated." Don't tell me I don't understand. Don't tell me that there are arguments on both sides. We're way past that. Way past.

It's simple: Kids or guns? Which side are you on? There is no middle ground. Either you're with us or you're against us. If you take money from the NRA you're against us. End of story.

It's simple: Our children are under attack and we are letting them die. We are culpable unless and until we do more and do it faster. And the way to do it is to stop pretending that there are legitimate choices here. Kids or guns? Which side are you on?

It's simple: We need simple slogans that get to the heart of the matter, not detailed policy positions that try to reconcile the irreconciliable. Kids or guns? Which side are you on?

It's simple: I want to see commercials that ask "KIds or guns? Which side are you on?" I want to see citizens stand up and ask their elected representatives: Kids or guns? Which side are you on? And demand direct one word answers. I want to see citizens insist that government fulfill its basic responsibility to make our country safe for our children. I want to see citizens refuse to vote for anyone who takes any money from the NRA.

It's simple: We are in a war. We are under attack. Kids or guns? Which side are you on?
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

chuckrh
Posts: 3001
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by chuckrh »

beantownbubba wrote:Adapted from a facebook post:

Children are dead. Nuance must die. Subtlety must die.

It's simple: There can be only black and white, no gray, no uncertainty, no waffling. Kids or guns?

It's simple: The NRA has declared war on our children. That's not a metaphor and I don't say it lightly. But by acting the way they do, by taking the positions that they do, by treating the level of violence and number of violent incidents as acceptable they are in fact making war on our children. Don't tell me "it's complicated." Don't tell me I don't understand. Don't tell me that there are arguments on both sides. We're way past that. Way past.

It's simple: Kids or guns? Which side are you on? There is no middle ground. Either you're with us or you're against us. If you take money from the NRA you're against us. End of story.

It's simple: Our children are under attack and we are letting them die. We are culpable unless and until we do more and do it faster. And the way to do it is to stop pretending that there are legitimate choices here. Kids or guns? Which side are you on?

It's simple: We need simple slogans that get to the heart of the matter, not detailed policy positions that try to reconcile the irreconciliable. Kids or guns? Which side are you on?

It's simple: I want to see commercials that ask "KIds or guns? Which side are you on?" I want to see citizens stand up and ask their elected representatives: Kids or guns? Which side are you on? And demand direct one word answers. I want to see citizens insist that government fulfill its basic responsibility to make our country safe for our children. I want to see citizens refuse to vote for anyone who takes any money from the NRA.

It's simple: We are in a war. We are under attack. Kids or guns? Which side are you on?
Well said, bubba.

Zip City
Posts: 17313
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by Zip City »

beantownbubba wrote:Adapted from a facebook post:

Children are dead. Nuance must die. Subtlety must die.

It's simple: There can be only black and white, no gray, no uncertainty, no waffling. Kids or guns?

It's simple: The NRA has declared war on our children. That's not a metaphor and I don't say it lightly. But by acting the way they do, by taking the positions that they do, by treating the level of violence and number of violent incidents as acceptable they are in fact making war on our children. Don't tell me "it's complicated." Don't tell me I don't understand. Don't tell me that there are arguments on both sides. We're way past that. Way past.

It's simple: Kids or guns? Which side are you on? There is no middle ground. Either you're with us or you're against us. If you take money from the NRA you're against us. End of story.

It's simple: Our children are under attack and we are letting them die. We are culpable unless and until we do more and do it faster. And the way to do it is to stop pretending that there are legitimate choices here. Kids or guns? Which side are you on?

It's simple: We need simple slogans that get to the heart of the matter, not detailed policy positions that try to reconcile the irreconciliable. Kids or guns? Which side are you on?

It's simple: I want to see commercials that ask "KIds or guns? Which side are you on?" I want to see citizens stand up and ask their elected representatives: Kids or guns? Which side are you on? And demand direct one word answers. I want to see citizens insist that government fulfill its basic responsibility to make our country safe for our children. I want to see citizens refuse to vote for anyone who takes any money from the NRA.

It's simple: We are in a war. We are under attack. Kids or guns? Which side are you on?
The majority choose guns.
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by beantownbubba »

Zip City wrote:The majority choose guns.
The frustrating thing is that I do not believe that is factually correct.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by beantownbubba »

Some folks are trying to get #kidsorguns to trend on twitter. If you're so inclined, please join them. Obviously you can say what you want, but if you're looking for a template/suggestion, here's what I tweeted:

It's time for single issue voting!! NO NRA money; NO pro NRA votes!!! #kidsorguns Which side are YOU on?
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
whatwouldcooleydo?
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Desolation Row
Contact:

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by whatwouldcooleydo? »

So yesterday Jeff Sessions is speaking about what happened in Florida, and he's referencing MS-13, as if that has any connection to this massacre. I so want to hear a political figure state the obvious: the threat to Americans is not gangs, MS-13, ISIS, immigrants, any of that- it's us. We don't need to project onto "others" the notion of the boogieman, we Americans are doing an "exceptional" job of shooting each other to death, something on which there is no chance "they" will replace us.

#we're#1(atmassshootings)

I recognize that this is not anywhere near my best writing, but I'm on NyQuil and fading fast. I hope that my point comes through
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing

User avatar
whatwouldcooleydo?
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Desolation Row
Contact:

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by whatwouldcooleydo? »

Image

mine: George Soros is working with illegal aliens to overthrow capitalism
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing

User avatar
pearlbeer
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:56 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by pearlbeer »

I've been delaying joining in the conversation because, I'm so damn mad. I was also able to share a few opinions in person this weekend.

On a long, long list of issues I'm passionate about the Gun Debate would likely surface to the top. Which, makes me really angry because the issue is just so STUPID. This debate deeply embarrasses me as an American and as a human being. Long ago we made a "Right" more important than what IS right. That is not the way democracy is intended to function. It isn't the way basic human dignity is intended to function.

A couple of points I'm going to attempt to make here.

First off, the idea of this issue being "complicated" or "sensitive" or "hard" is just stupid. That crap has got to go. It is (beyond) time to take a stand and make this a voting issue, and an issue that is central to any candidate's campaign. The Republican party, or at least the extreme right of the party took a "sensitive issue", Abortion, and created a compelling platform for 30+ years. This is an issue that roughly splits the electorate. So, explain to me how an issue that has roughly BROAD consensus is too sensitive to take seriously as a platform? It's bullshit. We call BS. We need to force our elected officials and candidates to take a firm stand. Firm. Not some bullshit 'common sense' conversation. Common sense left the building with Elvis a long time ago.

Second, we need to deal with the NRA. The NRA represents a minority of the population and uses fear as a weapon to impose it's beliefs and agenda over the majority of the population. THAT. THAT. THAT - is the definition of Terrorism. Fear of the weapons, fear at the ballot box, fear of the other. We need to call the NRA what it is: A Terrorist Organization. If your candidate has a 'C Minus' voting record from the NRA, ask her what her ISIS score is. We can't let a Terrorist Organization win. The NRA has to be politically driven out of relevancy. Not one dollar, not one vote. I'm sure my point will come across as hyperbolic. I get that. But, I don't know. The modern agenda of the NRA and the modern definition of a Terrorist Organization are pretty closely aligned. At the very least, they should know that I, for one, am not scared. I'm angry as hell, and I'm not taking it anymore.

Ugh. I hate thinking, talking or typing about this crap.


Third - It is a complicated issue, it's hard to find a solution.

No, it isn't. It isn't hard at all. Here, I'll solve it for you. (Disclaimer: there is a hell of a lot of nuance and 'devil's in the details' in the following, of course. But the principles are fairly easy to understand. And if we continue to argue solutions with 'yes...but...', we aren't going to get anywhere.)

1) No normal citizen should be allowed to own, possess, buy or sell any weapon whose sole intent in design is to kill human beings.
(I know this is a pretty broad statement that needs to be discussed and defined in the public forum, but if you tell me that a AR-15 can be used for hunting, fuck you.)

2) National registry for all firearms and required insurance.
(If you are honestly scared of a national database, then you don't drive, vote, own a house, get medical attention or pay taxes. Get real.)

3) Gun owners can be held liable for damage a gun registered to them causes.
(Want to be a 'straw man' or lend your buddy your gun? Better be damn sure you know what they are going to do with. Want to keep a loaded gun in the closet? Better be sure your kids don't play with it.)

There. I can go on, but those three pillars should set the stage. Don't tell me it's complicated. Don't tell me it's hard. Don't preach to me about your rights. There is NOTHING that is proposed above that isn't explicitly applicable to the car you own. NOTHING. You can't drive a F-1 car down the highway. Your car must be registered and insured. If you are irresponsible with your car, you can be held liable and your right to drive can be revoked.

So, don't tell me this issue is complicated. I'll end where I started. The Gun Debate is STUPID. Deeply stupid. It was time to solve a long time ago.
Love each other, Motherfuckers!

Iowan
Posts: 12062
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Oneota watershed

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by Iowan »

I'm a big personal liberty guy, but something has to be done on the gun front.

The bottom line is that they need to be treated more like a privilege than a right. That's going to require a constitutional amendment. A right to bear arms just doesn't make as much sense today as it did at the time of drafting.

But, and I might catch hell for this, making sure we follow the appropriate avenues to achieve these means (IE keep legislation within constitutional limits) is more appropriate than immediate action. If we use emotion as a justification to override our constitutional structure, we open Pandora's box. Especially with the current make up of our government. Rights have limits (see Native Americans being barred from using hallucinogens in religious ceremonies), and no one challenges the idea that it's illegal to own nuclear weapons.

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by beantownbubba »

Not exactly what Iowan said, but in the same spirit, I don't think it's helpful to label the NRA as terrorists. True, false or kind of true but exaggerated, it will not get us closer to the goal.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I absolutely believe we have to comply with it. I differ with you, Iowan, to the extent I believe that the Amendment is just fine as is and easily accommodates any kind of gun controls I would consider reasonable. It's the current interpretation of it that creates a roadblock because it's wrong (imo, of course, but on this one I think we're in the land of true opinion). My current approach to that particular aspect of the problem is to ask anyone who advocates anything like an absolutist view of the 2nd Amendment whether they're a member of a well regulated militia. Many literally don't know what I'm talking about (tough to advocate for literal interpretation when you don't know the literal words) and of those that do, most don't get that that little phrase makes a big difference to literal interpretation/understanding but I keep working at it. (I think there are other reasons why the problem is with the interpretation of the Amendment, not its words, but I don't want to get too far afield).
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
blessedcurse
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:30 am
Location: Between valley and peak, Nova Scotia

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by blessedcurse »

beantownbubba wrote:Not exactly what Iowan said, but in the same spirit, I don't think it's helpful to label the NRA as terrorists. True, false or kind of true but exaggerated, it will not get us closer to the goal.

As for the 2nd Amendment, I absolutely believe we have to comply with it. I differ with you, Iowan, to the extent I believe that the Amendment is just fine as is and easily accommodates any kind of gun controls I would consider reasonable. It's the current interpretation of it that creates a roadblock because it's wrong (imo, of course, but on this one I think we're in the land of true opinion). My current approach to that particular aspect of the problem is to ask anyone who advocates anything like an absolutist view of the 2nd Amendment whether they're a member of a well regulated militia. Many literally don't know what I'm talking about (tough to advocate for literal interpretation when you don't know the literal words) and of those that do, most don't get that that little phrase makes a big difference to literal interpretation/understanding but I keep working at it. (I think there are other reasons why the problem is with the interpretation of the Amendment, not its words, but I don't want to get too far afield).
Interesting take Bubba - I am completely out of my wheel house, (and should probably just stay outside) but I am curious from my little perch here in the Great White North. Our previous government, for example, went to great lengths to amend our Criminal Code in the spirit of a 'tough on crime' approach. One of the consequences was the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for a number of offences. It was not long before our judiciary began to hold that these mandatory minimums are infringing our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (ie - the right not to be subjected to the cruel and unusual punishment) - these MMSs took away the ability of the sentencing judge to apply the objectives and principles of sentencing in what should be, by and large, an individualized process. I see our judiciary as taking the expansive approach to Constitutional interpretation. Will not the natural evolution of any policy directed at narrowing a constitutional right be ultimately turned back by the American judiciary?

In hindsight, this would have been an engaging conversation to have in person last weekend. Sigh....
Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them. - Thoreau

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by beantownbubba »

blessedcurse wrote:Interesting take Bubba - I am completely out of my wheel house, (and should probably just stay outside) but I am curious from my little perch here in the Great White North. Our previous government, for example, went to great lengths to amend our Criminal Code in the spirit of a 'tough on crime' approach. One of the consequences was the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for a number of offences. It was not long before our judiciary began to hold that these mandatory minimums are infringing our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (ie - the right not to be subjected to the cruel and unusual punishment) - these MMSs took away the ability of the sentencing judge to apply the objectives and principles of sentencing in what should be, by and large, an individualized process. I see our judiciary as taking the expansive approach to Constitutional interpretation. Will not the natural evolution of any policy directed at narrowing a constitutional right be ultimately turned back by the American judiciary?

In hindsight, this would have been an engaging conversation to have in person last weekend. Sigh....
A missed opportunity indeed, sir. Though I'm not sure there is enough beer in Athens to have carried us through this one :)

I think there may have been a time when I could have given you a straight answer to a very straight and appropriate question. But that time is not now. Things I believed to be true are no longer true (if they ever were), certainties have vanished and the world as I understood it is no longer. That's kinda dramatic, I know, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that if up is down and down is sideways, how the hell can anyone know which way is expansive, much less up?

For example, imho, mandatory minimums should be against public policy here as well, not necessarily because they implicate the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (I'm not familiar with that argument being applied in this context though it seems like it could/should be) but as a usurpation of judicial authority and as a dimunition in justice as sentences cannot be crafted to fit circumstances. Nonetheless, mandatory minimums exist and seem likely to be around for some time. So is your basic assumption that the general drift is towards expansion of rights incorrect? Not exactly. There are examples which would support your proposition so I guess I'd say it's a mixed bag, tending in the direction you describe but not clearly and directly.

To add to the confusion, "liberalism" is usually associated w/ expanding individual rights in this country (as distinct from the related but different notion of freedom from govt interference which is a conservative touchstone; the 2 are not easy to reconcile) yet on gun control the liberal position is the one that would arguably diminish individual rights (but consider that the rights of gun owners would arguably be limited more or less to the same extent as the rights of potential gun violence victims would expand). See what I did there? I turned a straight line into a circle, or maybe just a jumble.

The further we look, the more confusing it gets: "Conservatism" in the US is usually associated w/ "strict construction" of the Constitution (the position that the words should be followed literally and not "interpreted"). "Liberals" are generally in favor of evolving interpretations to fit changing circumstances. It's not so much that the 2nd Amendment reverses that, it's more that it turns it inside out. Let's remember what the 2nd Amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." All of 27 words (yes, I counted) and so much fuss.

So, ok, what is the strict, literal reading of those 27 words? Well, most people who SAY they're reading it literally and who SAY they're conservative, begin by simply ignoring the first 13 (or almost half the) words. How can that be strict construction? Answer: It's not. What about the remaining words? Does anyone go into court (or on tv) and say "I have the absolute right to keep and bear arms"? No, of course not. They say that the 2nd Amendment says that they have the absolute right to own as many guns of as many types as they want and to do w/ those guns as they please (e.g. concealed carry, standing ground, etc). Wait. I'm confused. NONE of those words are in the 2nd Amendment, so where's the strict construction? OTOH, liberals are happy to read words into the Constitution which for example never even mentions words like "Miranda warnings." But liberals generally read in words that, as you say, expand individual rights and protect individuals from the government. Here, liberals read in words like "subject to reasonable regulation" which sound pretty neutral but which, as you also suggest, result in the shrinkage of individual rights and insert the government's big paws into a place from which they're now arguably prohibited. Ready to throw up your hands yet? Or to just throw up?

And all of that is before you even get to what I consider to be the most important analysis of all, which starts with the proposition that nowhere does the Bill of Rights (i.e. the first 10 Amendments) say that the 10 Amendments are listed in no particular order, nor does it say that they're listed in order of priority or importance. Conservatives like the latter argument because the theory is that the more important an amendment is, the less the government should be able to fuck w/ it. But like i said, they're just making that up because it's not in the Constitution. But let's assume it's true.

Let's say the 2nd Amendment is the second most important Amendment and should be limited the second least. Now we have to look at the First Amendment to see how that is treated. And guess what? First Amendment rights are limited in dozens of way and have been almost since the adoption of the Constitution. For example, Congress may "make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Yet is well established that government may establish "time, place and manner" restrictions on where and how people may speak and protest in public. Perhaps America's greatest jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. famously pointed out that even though the Constitution SAYS Congress may make no law, obviously Congress can make a law that says it's a crime to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Defamation and libel laws are obvious restrictions on free speech and are just as clearly constitutional. And even though the bias is against prior restraint of publication of news and information, the government in fact can prohibit publication that threatens national security in a direct and immediate way (if they can prove that to a court). And on it goes through many limitations and restrictions (and let's not even get started on the ways in which Congress makes laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," both of which are also prohibited by the First Amendment). So, if the most important, primary Amendment is subject to limitation, how is it possible to argue that the second most important is not? Answer: It's not possible. Or, more precisely, people do it all the time, but they're wrong.

Bottom line: It's a mess and at least imho it cannot be understood through the consistent application of any theoretical model or the application of traditional understandings of the political spectrum.

Edited for clarity, I hope
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
blessedcurse
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:30 am
Location: Between valley and peak, Nova Scotia

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by blessedcurse »

Thanks Bubba for taking the time. I learned a lot from that reply. My impression is that things may be in much more disarray than I imagined.

You are correct, there is unlikely enough beer in Athens ;)
Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them. - Thoreau

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by beantownbubba »

blessedcurse wrote:Thanks Bubba for taking the time. I learned a lot from that reply. My impression is that things may be in much more disarray than I imagined.

You are correct, there is unlikely enough beer in Athens ;)
Disarray is an excellent description of the situation.

I'm thinking that the only way to know if there's enough beer in Athens is to test it ;)
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
pearlbeer
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:56 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by pearlbeer »

blessedcurse wrote:My impression is that things may be in much more disarray than I imagined.
Yes. I may be in the market for Canadian citizenship. I've got my wedding toque prepared.
Love each other, Motherfuckers!

User avatar
whatwouldcooleydo?
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Desolation Row
Contact:

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by whatwouldcooleydo? »

pearlbeer wrote:
blessedcurse wrote:My impression is that things may be in much more disarray than I imagined.
Yes. I may be in the market for Canadian citizenship. I've got my wedding toque prepared.
I'm only half joking when I wonder how just far we are from being able to ask other countries to grant us asylum :roll: :roll: :roll:
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing

User avatar
whatwouldcooleydo?
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Desolation Row
Contact:

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by whatwouldcooleydo? »

Florida: porn is a health risk, but AR-15s- not so much

Florida, you shithole :roll:

The state's House of Representatives approved the resolution by a voice vote Tuesday, despite some members asking why the topic is being taken up at this time. The resolution was sponsored by Rep. Ross Spano, who is running for attorney general.

During a debate, Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith asked Spano if pornography has killed or physically injured anyone. He went one step further in asking Spano if pornography has caused any first responders to seek counseling.
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by beantownbubba »

whatwouldcooleydo? wrote:Florida: porn is a health risk, but AR-15s- not so much

Florida, you shithole :roll:

The state's House of Representatives approved the resolution by a voice vote Tuesday, despite some members asking why the topic is being taken up at this time. The resolution was sponsored by Rep. Ross Spano, who is running for attorney general.

During a debate, Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith asked Spano if pornography has killed or physically injured anyone. He went one step further in asking Spano if pornography has caused any first responders to seek counseling.
Thus, next week's headline: Florida man blows his step daughter's head off w/ AR 15 while engaging in anal sex w/ her during an orgy livestreamed over the internet.

Whatever happened to "make love, not war"?
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
whatwouldcooleydo?
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Desolation Row
Contact:

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by whatwouldcooleydo? »

beantownbubba wrote:Whatever happened to "make love, not war"?
it took multiple rounds from an AR-15 :x
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing

User avatar
pearlbeer
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:56 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by pearlbeer »

I spent a small portion of my day calling up some random school district in Texas and explaining the 'Tinker Standard'.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/e ... 628365.php


Here is a bit more about the Tinker Standard if you find any other schools pulling this crap.

http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/fr ... friendly=y
Love each other, Motherfuckers!

User avatar
Flying Rabbit
Posts: 1175
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 5:10 pm
Location: ALASKA
Contact:

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by Flying Rabbit »

Did anyone watch the town hall?

Rubio definitely didn't come off well, but at least he showed up to face the people. It was noted a few times that Rick Scott didn't even consider attending.

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by beantownbubba »

I find that I am becoming increasingly radicalized over guns. It seems like just about every day I wake up a little more angry, a little less willing to put up w/ bullshit and a lot more frustrated. And I don't like it. I don't necessarily object to being radicalized, though it's not a great fit w/ my lifestyle, but I'd much prefer if it were over economic justice or maybe racism or maybe even environmental issues but part of the reason for the anger and frustration is exactly that this issue just shouldn't have gotten to this point w/out a solution. The whole thing is crazy.

Was it only yesterday (or a couple of days ago) that I was suggesting to pearlbeer that he tone down references to the NRA as terrorists? This morning I woke up, checked my news feed, saw the usual post horror bullshit and my first thought was "NRA = babykillers." OK, it was 4 am and I was a little grouchy but I don't think this is a good (for anyone) or healthy (for me) thing.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by beantownbubba »

beantownbubba wrote:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." All of 27 words (yes, I counted) and so much fuss.

So, ok, what is the strict, literal reading of those 27 words? Well, most people who SAY they're reading it literally and who SAY they're conservative, begin by simply ignoring the first 13 (or almost half the) words. How can that be strict construction? Answer: It's not.
From today's NYT story about the town hall mtg in FL last nite w/ Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, a representative of the NRA:

"Diane Wolk Rogers, a history teacher at Stoneman Douglas, confronted Ms. Loesch by asking her to defend the idea that allowing the suspect in the shooting, a 19-year-old, to own an assault rifle represents “a well-regulated militia” as is written in the Second Amendment.

Ms. Loesch said the phrase was meant to protect the rights of anyone who “could operate and service their firearm,” an answer that drew loud yelling and more boos from the audience."

Let's be clear: Ms. Loesch interprets the words "a well regulated militia" to mean "anyone who can read instructions." Never mind "strict construction," I think we're now into preposterous construction. She is simply lying in order to do the best she can in an impossible situation because that's her job (most likely), or she actually believes that, in which case I can only conclude that she and I literally do not speak the same language, because even w/ a map and a flashlight I can't get from a "well regulated militia" to "anyone who can operate a firearm."

I do not mean to suggest that the whole world (i.e. the whole gun control debate) turns on just those few words. But I can think of no finer example of why things are so bad and getting worse. Without agreement on fundamental facts and w/out agreement on what words mean (meaning that the interpretation of words must be w/in certain limits of definitions, rationality and logic) there's no "debate," there's not even a society.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

Zip City
Posts: 17313
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by Zip City »

She already looks like a corporate mega-villain, but not NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch is saying super-villain things

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/966707132832903168
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by beantownbubba »

Loesch's boss decided to get into the act as well (from my FB post):

In the wake of David Brooks's remarkably misguided appeal in yesterday's NYT for gun control advocates to be more respectful and civil, today we have Wayne LaPierre of the NRA foaming at the mouth. The man actually referred to the possibility of Democrats winning control of the House, Senate or White House as "seizing control of the government." This is not merely frightening, it's sick. It's a repudiation, a disavowal of democracy and a justification for an actual autocratic takeover of the government.

LaPierre of course picked up a tweeted endorsement from Trump this morning, too, though it's not clear if it was in response to LaPierre's speech.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics ... index.html
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
pearlbeer
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:56 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

Post by pearlbeer »

beantownbubba wrote:I find that I am becoming increasingly radicalized over guns. It seems like just about every day I wake up a little more angry, a little less willing to put up w/ bullshit and a lot more frustrated. And I don't like it.
Good. GOOD. I hate this issue too. It is embarrassing and deeply stupid. Kids or guns? Really? It is insanity, and collective anger is the only thing that will drive action. All of the science, data and for that fact, morality has been there for decades and we've refused to act. Stay angry, my friend.

Further, it is just insane to consider WHY we are arming ourselves. Americans are arming themselves to protect themselves from other Americans. We are (and have been) engaged in an arms race with each other. Civil society? Ha.

Finally, regarding my labeling the NRA as terrorists: First, I did say I know I was being hyperbolic. BTB is right, this sort of label isn't useful. However, I will stand by my statement that the modern agenda of the NRA and the modern definition of a Terrorist Organization are closely aligned. The NRA needs to be driven into political irrelevancy. NRA voting records and contributions should be called out and seen as a badge of shame. If we keep the pace up, this could happen. If the NRA begins to lose power, change will be much more rapid. They know this. It is why they take an absolutist stance. If you need any more data here, feel free to ruin your day by reading Wayne LaPierre's speech this morning at CPAC. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/22/58791145 ... f-shooting

He says people like me (and you), are pushing gun control in order to eradicate all individual freedoms. He calls people like me (and you) Socialists. He says people like me (and you) are exploiting this tragedy. He explicitly tells all people to be scared of a socialist invasion. He tells people that it is coming. He advocates for more firearms. He advocates for guns in schools. He pushes the good guy with a gun theory. He exclusively uses FEAR to push his agenda. Not science, not data, not logic, not reason, FEAR. Does this sound like a normal political organization? Honestly, does this sound normal? Does this even sound remotely American? He is explicitly turning us against each other.

I'll be the bigger man, and admit that BTB is right. It isn't going to be productive to apply such labels to my own countrymen. But, I'll tell you, Bubba - I'm not far off the mark.

Now that I'm done being the bigger man, I'll retreat back to my cocktail of anger and immaturity: FUCK THE NRA.
Love each other, Motherfuckers!

Post Reply