monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Walter Hinteler,

Fox is a propaganda organ of the GOP and for Trump (and for Murdoch himself). This move is predictable.

@hightor,

Quote:

I think the misrepresentations were rather trivial. If the president didn't regularly mangle the English language, tell lies repeatedly, and demonstrate such a loose grasp of facts, reporters might not jump so quickly to these mistaken conclusions.

They were trivial. And as you suggest, far far less egregious than what Trump does pretty much every day.

Still, the two incidents noted, if as described, piss me off not merely for carelessness but for giving fodder to the morons who've bought into Trump's fake news con.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

And as you suggest, far far less egregious than what Trump does pretty much every day.

There you go, again. Soon, everybody on a2k is going to try to fit 'egregious' into a sentence - again.

2 Replies

Quote:

"The big one is the Papadopoulos thing,” former CIA and National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden told me hours after the Manafort-Gates arraignments, following a Washington, D.C., panel he led on “Truth Tellers in the Bunker,” a reference to both the media and intelligence agencies that have reported on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

For Hayden, the Papadopoulos indictment underscored yet again how eager Team Trump was to collude with the Kremlin when its emissaries came bearing gifts of Clinton “dirt.”

Newsweek

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

blatham wrote:

And as you suggest, far far less egregious than what Trump does pretty much every day.

There you go, again. Soon, everybody on a2k is going to try to fit 'egregious' into a sentence - again.

I find your intimation that we are all shallow mimics just... egregious.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Fox is a propaganda organ of the GOP and for Trump (and for Murdoch himself).

Balderdash.

0 Replies

I like this one —

Quote:

We have a lot of mental health problems as do other countries.

And when he mentioned a “mental health problem at the highest level” I immediately thought about the current occupant of the White House.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

One part of the SHARE Act would prevent wolves from being returned to endangered status, ensuring that they can continue to be hunted.

What's your take on this?

1 Reply

@hightor,

I'm neutral on the wolf hunting issue. However, the part of the SHARE Act that removes all federal restrictions on armor piecing rifle ammo is vital. We need to be able to use AP ammo in our assault rifles in case we are attacked by criminals wearing heavy body armor. I've been chafing at the restrictions on AP rifle ammo for most of my life.

Also, the part that will allow dirt cheap AK-47s (semi-auto-only of course) to flood into the country is pretty important. People who can only afford a $35 weapon should still have access to decent firepower.

1 Reply

I wonder how many of the people who were killed yesterday were gun owners.

Likely not the 17 mo old.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

We used AP ammunition in basic with the old M-1 Garand. The reason given was that it was safer because it was less likely to ricochet.

0 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

There you go, again. Soon, everybody on a2k is going to try to fit 'egregious' into a sentence - again.

Well, you can fit it into speech as well. However in that case, you'll want to be sure you pronounce it correctly.

"e" as in "eek"
"greg" as in "dredge"
"ious" as in "juice"

0 Replies

I'm a little stuck about this whole idea about the "citizen hero" in this case. So, let me get this straight... If I see someone running away after shooting some people and I have my rifle handy, I can just take off after him and try to kill him? The cops would be okay with it, and I get hailed as a citizen hero if I do that? Yeah? I just can't envision it. Why am I stuck on this?

2 Replies

ORAL SEZ:

Quote:

It's pretty good at protecting the people who carry guns when they go about in public

, I see your head is comfortably up yer ass once again. We cant even protect a president with an army of armed guards.
Gun Crimes = {f} number of guns in circulation

1 Reply

@snood,

An understandable dilemma. Neither option is without serious negatives. I would shoot the fellow because he might do it again elsewhere that day or later on. That, for me, makes the decision easy. How can I, morally, not try to stop him?

But all of that is assuming I'd have it together emotionally and I am not certain I would.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

I'm a little stuck about this whole idea about the "citizen hero" in this case. So, let me get this straight... If I see someone running away after shooting some people and I have my rifle handy, I can just take off after him and try to kill him? The cops would be okay with it, and I get hailed as a citizen hero if I do that? Yeah? I just can't envision it. Why am I stuck on this?

You're forgetting the difference between "Texas" and "not Texas".

Texas law actually states that it is permissible to lie in wait and shoot someone in the back if you catch them stealing someone else's property (or your own property for that matter).

I wouldn't advise trying to shoot a criminal in circumstances other than self defense outside Texas borders.

However, if a dangerous criminal flees the scene before the cops arrive and you merely follow them at a safe distance and relay their position via a 911 call until the police can take over the chase, the police will probably be grateful for that sort of assistance.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Gun Crimes = {f} number of guns in circulation

Why does "gun crimes" even matter?

Is it worse to be robbed at gunpoint than it is to be robbed with a knife at your throat?

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

An understandable dilemma. Neither option is without serious negatives. I would shoot the fellow because he might do it again elsewhere that day or later on. That, for me, makes the decision easy. How can I, morally, not try to stop him?

But all of that is assuming I'd have it together emotionally and I am not certain I would.

(Besides the obvious discrepancies in how police might respond to a large black man firing a rifle)
Isn't that vigilanteeism? (not sure of the spelling). Doesn't the law frown on laymen taking the law into their own hands?

2 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

(Besides the obvious discrepancies in how police might respond to a large black man firing a rifle)

Yeah. I admit I hadn't considered that very real aspect. If you have a girlfriend who is good with makeup, perhaps you could have her give you some freckles. That's pretty certain to confuse a racist cop and maybe give you an extra 2 or 3 seconds to explain.

Quote:

Isn't that vigilanteeism? (not sure of the spelling). Doesn't the law frown on laymen taking the law into their own hands?

Normally, yes (although in some states, they'd erect a statue in your honor even if it had Charles Bronson's face). But in a case like this, with many witnesses, you'd be fine.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Texas law actually states that it is permissible to lie in wait and shoot someone in the back if you catch them stealing someone else's property (or your own property for that matter).

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know