Page 74 of 228 FirstFirst ... 2464727374757684124174 ... LastLast
Results 731 to 740 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #731
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    Josh, the links you posted do not indicate anywhere that Fusion GPS directly wiretapped US Citizens to increase the scope of its product. This was the claim you made on page 70.

    The Nunes memo does not make this argument. The Schiff memo has information that refutes this argument. You are making the claim that because the Schiff memo is questionable in some other places, therefore it is questionable on this topic (the topic that so far is asserted without evidence).

    The claim on the Schiff memo is actually the same argument that Andrew C McCarthy is making - because there are some things that are questionable and we can't see the blacked out information (is McCarthy's claim), we must then hold the whole document in suspicion and disregard. A variation of this statement, with players and agencies removed, could apply to the IPCC report as well. Because this information is flawed, it can be wholly disregarded. That's a philosophy position, but not necessarily one that has empirical support.

  2. #732
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    no one denies the shooter is at fault for the shooting.

    fact: there were good guys there with guns
    fact: they were not able to stop the shooter

    your conclusion: good guy with a gun will stop shooters

    everyone else:
    Yes, the Coral Police who showed up 4 minutes later and enguaged the shooter. The County Deputies were NOT Good Guys with guns. They were paid to do a job they did NOT do. Good Guys with guns are not being paid to watch a school. But lets look at the definition eh?

    The National Rifle Association's vice president, Wayne LaPierre, first coined the "good guy with a gun" argument in 2012 after the Sandy Hook school shooting that killed 20 children and six adults. During a press event in Washington, LaPierre essentially suggested that a "good guy" who carries a firearm in public could use it to take down a "bad guy" or active shooter.

    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said.
    If they did NOT go and take on the shooter, they are not a GGWaG. If they cower behind a car? NOT a GGWaG. Not using your firearm, when you have it and training? NOT a GGWaG. 4 on 1? That is a coward. Sorry with your false equivalency.

    fact: FBI cannot take guns from the mentally ill, there is no law to do this.
    fact: local police cannot disarm or arrest someone based on here-say.
    The FBI CAN investigate and remove firearms and take into custody people who are planning to be active shooters.

    https://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/...mber-oklahoma/

    The FBI has arrested an Oklahoma man on charges that he tried to detonate what he thought was a 1,000-pound bomb outside a bank, acting out of a hatred for the U.S. government and an admiration for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy Mc*Veigh, according to court papers.

    Jerry Drake Varnell was arrested shortly after a Friday night attempt to detonate a fake bomb packed into what he believed was a stolen cargo van outside the bank in Oklahoma City, according to a criminal complaint filed in federal court. *

    The FBI had been on Varnell*s trail since December 2016, thanks to a confidential informant. The probe went hot in April, shortly before the warning, when their informant reported a series of communications from Varnell about moving forward with the plot. In fact, on the same day that the report was issued, Varnell was meeting with the informant to put together plans for building the bomb * and bragging about a *dope binge*:
    My conclusion?: Spot Fucking ON! Hot damn. Look at that. 2 in a row.

    And look down at the GOP repealed law. That DID give the government to take away firearm without due process. BAMM!

    some more fun facts:

    fact: because of NRA lobbying, government research into preventing gun violence is illegal
    You mean the Dickey Act? Because of one senator you mean? Who now regrets it? Oh, the GOP still use it. But that is about all you have.


    fact: trump signed a GOP law explicitly allowing the mentally ill to buy and keep firearms
    https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/n...asier-for-ment

    None of this is a remotely accurate description of what happened. A year ago, Congress and Trump eliminated a proposed rule that would have included in the federal government gun background database people who received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments.

    This is a regulation that potentially deprived between 75,000 to 80,000 people of a right based not on what they had done but on the basis of being classified by the government in a certain way. The fact that these people may have these impairments did not inherently mean that they were dangerous to themselves or others and needed to be kept away from guns.

    As I noted when the regulation was repealed last March, this rule violated not just the Second Amendment but the Fourth, because it deprived the affected people of a right without due process. The government does have the power to restrict and even deny gun ownership to people, but it has to show that these people have engaged in behavior that makes weapons dangerous in their hands.

    That's why the regulation was opposed not just by National Rifle Association (NRA) but by several mental health and disability groups and by the American Civil Liberties Union. Pundits largely ignored the latter groups' opposition to the rule, preferring to play up the power of the NRA and their influence on Republicans to turn the issue into a partisan fight.

    It was hackery then, and it is still hackery today. It's shameful to ignore the serious constitutional problems of this poorly conceived rule just to sow panic and implicate one's political opponents.

    fact: trump, republicans, and NRA all advocate against health care coverage (including mental health coverage) for 10s of millions of Americans
    The Grassley-Cruz bill would have started this out just fine, and since you said all advocate against it, maybe you need to start using some of the modifiers I am helping Steve with. You should try it. Until then, absolutes work in my favor. The G-C Bill had a LOT for mental health.

    Here is the bonus question: The DNC only seems to want to remove firearms, but doesn't address mental health concerning firearms? Why is that?

    So.... Maybe half a point to my 2.5. Better effort than normal! Still an F.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 03-07-2018 at 04:16 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  3. #733
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Josh, the links you posted do not indicate anywhere that Fusion GPS directly wiretapped US Citizens to increase the scope of its product. This was the claim you made on page 70.
    Sorry for the short form and confusion. I meant to say the FPS used the FBI collect wiretap style NHS information from our own database to 'unmask' information, and add that to the DNC's research, since that is how it is done nowadays. I made the mistake of assuming everybody was on that page. I imagine you can find more detailed explanations around. I have a cold and I am far fuzzier this week than normal, and I apologize for the confusion.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 03-07-2018 at 04:30 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #734
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    I have a cold and I am far fuzzier this week than normal, and I apologize for the confusion.
    https://www.amazon.com/Sambucus-Elde...00MJ7VL1O?th=1

    You're welcome.

  5. #735
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    I appreciate the correction, and I'm not sure I agree with your position, but the prior position was both incredibly surprising and immediately difficult to corroborate. I am less confused now.

  6. #736
    Huh? Fusion used FBI wiretap evidence to unmask what? That doesn't even make sense....

  7. #737
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    I'm going to be blunt.

    I don't think you've actually read the paper.

    I think you've opened it.

    I think you've looked at it.

    I think you've read what Watts has to say about it.

    I don't think you've closely read it for yourself, closely and understood what they're actually saying the data fingerprints.

    I don't blame you; it's quite dense. A decent fraction of my job is systems modeling and experimental statistical analysis for, and *I* struggled to get through it. In fact, I still can't explicate the finer points of the math, but I understand the "perfect model" concept well enough to understand that this paper is not what you should be citing in your arguments. The idea that you can take this paper, and hold it up to contradict the stated position of the paper's own authors, as if you understand their own work better than them, is just, well, unbelievable. You can't simply stop at the level of analysis that the data they present doesn't fit their previous predictions - that's not the point of the paper.

    To explain for the third parties, yes, the paper does square with Josh's claim that the observed warming is less than what Santer's models previously predicted. No argument there. They then dig into the structure of the data, and found that the differences between the observed data and the models are not consistent with an error in the overall CO2 feedback function, but rather are consistent with other external factors. The point is that we can use data to correct models, and the data tells us how to do that. We then use refined models to assess the risk of climate change, with ever greater confidence.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  8. #738
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Gordon - You blame, FIRST, the GOP and NRA for the shooting.
    no, i didn't.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #739
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Yes, the Coral Police who showed up 4 minutes later and enguaged the shooter. The County Deputies were NOT Good Guys with guns. They were paid to do a job they did NOT do. Good Guys with guns are not being paid to watch a school. But lets look at the definition eh?



    If they did NOT go and take on the shooter, they are not a GGWaG. If they cower behind a car? NOT a GGWaG. Not using your firearm, when you have it and training? NOT a GGWaG. 4 on 1? That is a coward. Sorry with your false equivalency.



    The FBI CAN investigate and remove firearms and take into custody people who are planning to be active shooters.

    https://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/...mber-oklahoma/



    My conclusion?: Spot Fucking ON! Hot damn. Look at that. 2 in a row.

    And look down at the GOP repealed law. That DID give the government to take away firearm without due process. BAMM!

    some more fun facts:



    You mean the Dickey Act? Because of one senator you mean? Who now regrets it? Oh, the GOP still use it. But that is about all you have.




    https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/n...asier-for-ment






    The Grassley-Cruz bill would have started this out just fine, and since you said all advocate against it, maybe you need to start using some of the modifiers I am helping Steve with. You should try it. Until then, absolutes work in my favor. The G-C Bill had a LOT for mental health.

    Here is the bonus question: The DNC only seems to want to remove firearms, but doesn't address mental health concerning firearms? Why is that?

    So.... Maybe half a point to my 2.5. Better effort than normal! Still an F.
    so you have literally the quote in your post that states that the NRA wanted to make it easier for the mentally ill to get guns .... but you use this to claim the NRA wasn't for it? as if a disabilities group being for it, somehow makes the NRA against it?

    this is how your posts work. you quote literally a document proving the person right, time and time again. your quoted document 100% confirms my claim. it says in black and fucking white, that the NRA, and GOP passed this law. "That's why the regulation (allowing guns to be taken away from the mentally ill)was opposed not just by National Rifle Association"

    boom.

    you lose.

    fact.


    you ask if democrats don't want to deal with the mental health issue ... are you dense?

    you know how you deal with mental health issues?

    YOU HAVE HEALTHCARE THAT PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO USE

    thats how you fucking help people with mental health.

    so yes, democrats want to restrict the mentally ill from having guns. AND want to improve the mental healthcare system. you do not do this by stripping 20 million americans of there healthcare. you do this by not watering down health insurance plans, because the first converge stripped to cut costs is often ..... MENTAL FUCKING HEALTH. you improve mental health, and access to mental healthcare, by increasing access to healthcare, and the number 1 way to do this, is to reduce the out of pocket costs for it. the more americans with mental health coverage, the more will use it, the better the problem gets.



    jesus christ you cannot be this dense. this must be a trolling character. because A+ 10/10 nonsensical trolling.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-07-2018 at 05:29 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #740
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    so you have literally the quote in your post that states that the NRA wanted to make it easier for the mentally ill to get guns .... but you use this to claim the NRA wasn't for it? as if a disabilities group being for it, somehow makes the NRA against it?

    this is how your posts work. you quote literally a document proving the person right, time and time again. your quoted document 100% confirms my claim. it says in black and fucking white, that the NRA, and GOP passed this law. "That's why the regulation (allowing guns to be taken away from the mentally ill)was opposed not just by National Rifle Association"

    boom.

    you lose.

    fact.


    you ask if democrats don't want to deal with the mental health issue ... are you dense?

    you know how you deal with mental health issues?

    YOU HAVE HEALTHCARE THAT PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO USE

    thats how you fucking help people with mental health.

    so yes, democrats want to restrict the mentally ill from having guns. AND want to improve the mental healthcare system. you do not do this by stripping 20 million americans of there healthcare. you do this by not watering down health insurance plans, because the first converge stripped to cut costs is often ..... MENTAL FUCKING HEALTH. you improve mental health, and access to mental healthcare, by increasing access to healthcare, and the number 1 way to do this, is to reduce the out of pocket costs for it. the more americans with mental health coverage, the more will use it, the better the problem gets.



    jesus christ you cannot be this dense. this must be a trolling character. because A+ 10/10 nonsensical trolling.
    I just actually read that hot air article - it's about a guy who tried to detonate a fake bomb given to him by the FBI. Doesn't remotely support the assertion "The FBI CAN investigate and remove firearms and take into custody people who are planning to be active shooters." The comparable situation would be an active shooter walking onto school property with a loaded firearm, not merely planning it. Prosecutors like individuals to take affirmative action towards completing their plan before charging someone with attempt.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •