192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Tue 21 Jan, 2020 09:59 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
The cops were there because of the fear mongering of the pussy liberals that are as scared of their own shadows as they are of guns.

"Pussy liberals" — see, this is why gun apologists are so often suspected of harboring some weird need to prove their manhood*.

Is that why there were so many women at the protest? To prove their manhood? The left wing media hyped up the event leading with the arrest of 3 racists and comparing them with everyone else that might attend the protest.

hightor wrote:
Do you really think that the only reason that anyone might want to tighten gun laws is out of fear?

Yes. They are afraid of guns because they don't understand them.

hightor wrote:
Gun control people aren't "scared" — they're outraged at the unnecessary loss of life in gun violence and disgusted by the political power of the gun lobby. They're not even asking for anything that drastic —

Gun control people need to understand that that people that own guns and do not want their rights trampled are just like them. What is your understanding of what they are doing in Va?

hightor wrote:
I think if anyone's afraid of their own shadows and susceptible to fear mongering it's the people like the ones openly carrying weapons in yesterday's demonstration. "Safest spot in the nation" — haha! — yeah, so safe all ten thousand of the scaredy-cats felt the need to carry a firearm!

No one participating in the protest felt the need to declare a state of emergency, no one went on talk shows to explain that all gun owners were obviously racists (AOC), no one at the protest tweeted about all the white supremacists carrying their guns and how they wouldn't think the black panthers should be armed (Hogg) despite the fact that the black panthers WERE their to protect their 2nd amendment rights. No scardy cats were carrying guns, they were all safe behind the fence inside the Capital Bldg shuddering in fright.


hightor wrote:
*And I'm not accusing McGentrix personally here — the fact is, this argument is so commonly trotted out by the pro-gun side that it's become a cliche, a handy phrase to throw into an argument like a little grenade. But think about it...why the sexual connotation? And why so blatant?

Because it is a literary device intended to provoke a response to continue the conversation. By questioning an opponents manhood by referring to them, or their argument or their stance or their whatever in terms of womanly parts it exaggerates the idea. Plus, it feels good sometimes to use crude language to make a point.
glitterbag
 
  1  
Tue 21 Jan, 2020 10:37 pm
@McGentrix,
Oh of course, it's very manly to denigrate women.....everyone understands that chest thumping ritual.

A lot of us own guns, even the people you crudely think of as pussy. (we do own guns, they sell guns to all sorts of people) Frankly, when I see your name a 'thought bubble' pops up and I think of a vulgar term for you. Let me walk that back a bit, not every time, just the times when you indulge in ridiculous insulting terms to describe people you assume are 'anti-McGentrix pussys'. It's tiresome and naive.

Thank you for your service.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 21 Jan, 2020 11:43 pm
Quote:
[Amy Goodman]:Rick Epstein [sic] , let’s begin with you. You covered the — rather, Rick Perlstein, let’s begin with you. I’m sorry for getting that wrong. Can you talk about what we are about to see?

RICK PERLSTEIN: A show trial. I’m really struck by the fact that the guy running this, Mitch McConnell, comes out of this tradition of Southern politics that all of us should go back and study. The fact of the matter is, for most of the 20th century, and of course all of the 19th, the South was basically an authoritarian society. It wasn’t really a democracy. And it used all kinds of strategies and stratagems to evade democratic accountability. I mean, when they said, you know, African Americans can’t vote, the laws didn’t say African Americans can’t vote. They used things like literacy tests. They used things like property qualifications. They used intimidation.

So, much the same way now, we see the Republicans running the Senate manipulating the rules in order to make it impossible to basically achieve a fair trial or anything approaching justice. So, we have this situation where they’re only going to be able to introduce the actual evidence and witnesses after they make their arguments. So that means anything that comes out tomorrow, we won’t be able to see. You know, Lev Parnas says that he’s not been able to present his evidence of Rudy Giuliani’s implication in these events to the Southern District of New York. That probably has something to do with William Barr. So, from every angle, we see the kind of walls closing in.

The big picture, I think, is, you can think of the kind of right-wing takeover of American politics as the Southernization of the United States. And this is sort of like what you saw when Southern juries would always acquit whites accused of crimes against African Americans and always convict African Americans accused of crimes against whites, no matter the evidence. Right? So we see this kind of pattern, that’s deeply embedded in American history, rising up to the highest levels of American justice. And it’s horrifying, and we shouldn’t have any illusions about what’s going on here.
More Here
glitterbag
 
  2  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 12:35 am
@blatham,
It's 1:32 EST, and Adam Schiff has just made a brilliant move. I hope it actually allows witnesses to be called. But as desperado donnie would say "we'll see what happens"
coldjoint
 
  1  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 12:37 am
@blatham,
Quote:
RICK PERLSTEIN: A show trial

What is he talking about the House's trial? All whining and repetition treating people like they have the memory of goldfish. Fail.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 12:47 am
@glitterbag,
Quote:
It's 1:32 EST, and Adam Schiff has just made a brilliant move

Did he resign?
glitterbag
 
  2  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 01:21 am
@coldjoint,
The House conducted an investigation, it's the Senate's responsibility to conduct a trial. Having trouble keeping up? Get some sleep, maybe you'll be sharper in the morning. Unlikely, but there is always hope for the hopeless.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 01:51 am
Quote:
Saudi Arabia has denied that its crown prince was responsible for hacking Amazon boss Jeff Bezos' phone.

A message from a phone number used by the prince has been implicated in the data breach, according to reports.

The kingdom's US embassy said the stories were "absurd" and called for an investigation into them.

It was previously claimed the alleged hack was linked to the murder of Washington Post writer Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

As well as being the founder of online retail giant Amazon, Mr Bezos owns the Washington Post.

Mr Bezos' phone was hacked after receiving a WhatsApp message sent from Mohammed bin Salman's personal account, according to the UK's Guardian newspaper.

The Financial Times reported that an investigation into the data breach found the billionaire's phone started secretly sharing huge amounts of data after he received an encrypted video file from the prince.

The Twitter account of the kingdom's US embassy issued an outright denial and called for the claims to be investigated.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51171400
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 04:07 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
The only abuse of power here is on the part of the Democrats who are perpetrating this witch hunt.


Biden bragged openly about his abuse of power. In a fair and just trial, he'd be McCained, and his son would be Epsteined, while on suicide watch.

And toss his brother Frank in the big house for this scam.

If we were serious about the desperation of the DNC, it's in covering their own filthy actions, because they never thought they could lose that election.

Let's see 'em all swinging.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 04:49 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Is that why there were so many women at the protest?

Lots of women own guns and a certain fearful percentage of them believe the NRA's scare tactics.

Quote:
They are afraid of guns because they don't understand them.

What's not to understand? Designed to kill animals and people, a controlled explosion releases gases that propel a projectile out of a metal tube at sufficiently high velocity to penetrate flesh and break bones.

What people don't understand is why some gun owners become so emotionally attached to them. What people don't understand is why some gun owners are so opposed to putting restrictions on their sale to people who shouldn't have them. What people don't understand is why some gun owners believe their constitutional rights are violated if they can't purchase more than one handgun a month.

If you have one firearm you're effectively enjoying your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Some gun owners confuse this with a non-existent right to buy arms.

Quote:
By questioning an opponents manhood by referring to them, or their argument or their stance or their whatever in terms of womanly parts it exaggerates the idea.

So you're basically admitting that gun ownership is connected to your conception of masculinity. Okay.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 05:42 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
What people don't understand is why some gun owners become so emotionally attached to them.

People just don't like having their rights violated.


hightor wrote:
What people don't understand is why some gun owners are so opposed to putting restrictions on their sale to people who shouldn't have them.

The trouble is, progressives think that everyone shouldn't have them.


hightor wrote:
What people don't understand is why some gun owners believe their constitutional rights are violated if they can't purchase more than one handgun a month.

You're overlooking the measure that people most object to (and that progressives most want to impose): bans on pistol grips.

But to address the point that you did raise, what if someone wants to buy a set of multiple antique handguns?


hightor wrote:
If you have one firearm you're effectively enjoying your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms covers anything that there is no compelling government interest in restricting.

Merely being allowed to have a single firearm does not satisfy the right to keep and bear arms unless someone can provide a compelling government interest to justify restricting people to a single firearm.


hightor wrote:
Some gun owners confuse this with a non-existent right to buy arms.

The right to have the gun includes the right to buy the gun.

It also includes the right to buy and possess ammo for the gun.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 07:00 am
In Davos, Trump is currently threatening to impose car duties against Europe, which could come "very soon". He announces "dramatic decisions" in the dispute with the World Trade Organization (WTO), and he wants to extend entry restrictions to more countries.

Trump plays his favourite games again.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 08:28 am
There is nothing these people won't lie about.
Quote:
What’s even more remarkable about the flap is that the White House actually stood by Sekulow’s allegation. Asked about the remark by reporters later in the night, White House legislative affairs director Eric Ueland reportedly walked away, only to return a while later — apparently after checking? — and suggest that Sekulow had not erred.

“When you read the transcript, it says ‘lawyer lawsuit,’ ” he said.

It’s not clear to what transcript Ueland is referring, but the Federal Document Clearing House transcript includes no references to “lawyer lawsuits” besides Sekulow’s. And video of Demings’s remarks are clear that she did, in fact, say “FOIA lawsuits” both times.
WP
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 08:36 am
@hightor,
I expect that a majority of gun owners in the USA believe the NRA is a fine organization and they do their best to keep anti-gun laws at bay in our convoluted political morass. The only thing they are fearful of is government over reach which the NRA helps keep in check.

Are news reporters emotionally attached to the first amendment? If the government started putting restrictions on who could and couldn't report news, would there be an outcry of government interference with the free expression of the first amendment? What if a reporter could only do one story a month and it could not be about the government unless it was praising how great it was? Would people be upset?

It's keep and bear arms... not keep and bear arm. In a free and open society people should be allowed to have as many guns as they can afford. I have a doctor friend that collect civil war memorabilia and he has well over 500 guns from that time in a vault attached to his home. Could you imagine telling someone they could only buy one book per month? Or, one newspaper per month? Or there was a limit on how many cars they could own? Or shirts or anything?

Not admitting anything of the sort. Was referring to the act of making an argument. Gun ownership does not make one and more or less masculine, but not wanting someone else to own a gun does make one a bit of a pussy.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 08:53 am
@hightor,
Quote:
With so many law enforcement professionals on the scene the protestors figured it was smarter to behave themselves.

Sure, I hear what you're saying. If the rally turns violent, your suspicions are confirmed. And if the rally remains nonviolent, your suspicions are confirmed. You're so creative.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 08:58 am
Quote:
After several days of serving in a largely passive role overseeing the trial, Roberts interjected after a particularly pointed exchange between House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and two lawyers for Trump, Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow.

“I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Roberts said.
WP

I don't know what might better illustrate the hollowness of this proceeding than the chief justice stepping in when somebody says "fart" or "poo poo" thus risking citizens' diminished respect for "the world's greatest deliberative body".
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 09:33 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

I don't know what might better illustrate the hollowness of this proceeding than the chief justice stepping in when somebody says "fart" or "poo poo" thus risking citizens' diminished respect for "the world's greatest deliberative body".


How did you feel about the investigation in the House of Representatives?
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 09:36 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
How did you feel about the investigation in the House of Representatives?
Differently than you, george. I watched quite a bit of it (a third or so). How about you?
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 09:51 am
Quote:
The president’s attorneys were more emotional — with the prevailing emotion being anger.
Ed Kilgore
Yes. Definitely accurate. As was the case in the House proceedings.

This isn't new. Cast back to Kavanaugh's behavior in his confirmation hearing.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/u3jjK9f6XXyVHw9tl5PIPCpZ32Q=/0x0:911x630/1200x800/filters:focal(383x243:527x387)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63583983/brett_kavanaugh_angry_e1538094104970.0.jpg

And to Lindsey Graham's behavior in that same hearing.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RTBxPPx62s4/maxresdefault.jpg

There is an undeniable similarity here with Jerry Springer's show and those similar to it. Or to Trump's campaign or his tweets now and his rallies. High emotions, passionate to the point of tears grievances, all delivered in screeching foghorn-volume blasts above the actual evidences submitted.

This sort of behavior and strategy is probably as old as human language. But it was formalized in US politics under the tutelage of Roger Ailes who grasped better than anyone else how the medium of TV could be manipulated for propaganda purposes.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Wed 22 Jan, 2020 09:58 am
Quote:
Masked gunmen on Wednesday ambushed and killed the local commander of a paramilitary security force in southwest Iran, an associate of Iran's top general recently killed in an American drone strike in Baghdad.

The slain commander, Abdolhossein Mojaddami, headed the Basij forces, a paramilitary wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) used for internal security and other tasks, in the town of Darkhoein.

He was shot in front of his home in the town in the country's oil-rich Khuzestan province, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Two gunmen on a motorcycle - armed with an assault rifle and a hunting rifle - ambushed Mojaddami, IRNA said. Other Iranian media said the gunmen's faces were covered with masks and that four shots were fired.

The case is under investigation and a motive was not immediately clear, but Basij units had been involved in violent clashes with demonstrators in the area in November, in which many protesters were injured and killed.

Amnesty International has reported that more than 300 people were killed in the unrest across the country, though Iran has not announced a death toll.

Mojaddami's killing is seen as another blow to the IRGC, following the death of top general Qassem Soleimani earlier this month in a US drone strike in Iraq. Mojaddami was described by IRNA as an associate of Soleimani, who was the head of the Quds Forces, the foreign wing of the IRGC.


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/masked-gunmen-kill-local-commander-iran-security-forces-200122142349845.html
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.9 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 07:59:54