Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.) Also, is Japan a jerk?

So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.) Also, is Japan a jerk? (Page 11)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2017, 01:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here's how I've been trying to tie the post you quoted back into the original.

The original claim was the Republican ban on gun research shows ill intent.

I'm arguing if one digs deeper, it's not that simple. One can support the position without the ill intent.
Is there a reason to ban this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/b...rove.html?_r=1
For example, Mr. Ballmer, said: “You know it’s not legal to know how many firearms that are in this country? The government is not allowed to collect the number.”

There is data for the number of firearms manufactured, licenses, inspections, “along with other data, but not a total,” he said. “I can’t show it! I’m shocked! But the N.R.A. apparently has lobbied in such a way government can’t report the data.”
(I'm taking Mr.Balmer at his word. My google-fu can neither confirm nor deny his claim)


Regardless, that's why I included more than one example. Are you conceding the Global Warming point?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2017, 08:21 PM
 
I personally think there's an excellent reason to ban directly measuring the number of guns in the country.

Again, just like with the original claims about gun research, the specifics are irrelevant. The question is am I arriving at my conclusion in good faith, or is that impossible? That it's impossible is what I feel is implied with the question. Has it been conceded my conclusions are based in good faith, or is their still an agenda I'm refusing to admit to?

Is it possible alternate universe subego may lose patience when his good faith arguments are met with consistent accusations of a hidden agenda? Might this prompt alternate universe subego to start being a dickhole about it? Something which would then get used as "further" evidence of his bad faith?

Global warming isn't a subject I pay much attention to, so my authority to comment is limited, however my experience has been the fundamentals of the argument apply across the board.

The opposing team acts in better faith than they appear to.

Note this is distinct from being right.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 21, 2017 at 08:32 PM. )
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2017, 06:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Global warming isn't a subject I pay much attention to, so my authority to comment is limited, however my experience has been the fundamentals of the argument apply across the board.

The opposing team acts in better faith than they appear to.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is one of my huge beefs with Democrats. They think Republicans know the truth, but deny it in pursuit of their twisty-mustache schemes.
It is possible you have a bit more bias than you would like to admit? While it seems you believe you possess (and you most certainly project an image of) thoughtful neutrality, when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt, you construct logic-stretching justifications for the behaviour and statements of many right-wing figures- full of thoughtful and well meaning nuance. Yet you readily dismiss 'Democrats' and 'the left' as a single misguided entity.

This is my problem with with people like you. You always make sweeping generalisations. It kills me that I have to point out the intentional irony in this last statement, but sadly, I know the audience.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2017, 10:56 AM
 
I think it's more likely I have biases I'm not conscious of than unwilling to admit. I try very hard to be frank about my biases.

In case it isn't clear, that last statement was meant to culture my appearance of thoughtful neutrality.

Seriously though, I'm put in the position of justifying right wing behavior to the left wing more than the converse because of the political makeup of the people participating in this forum.

The left here benefits from it too, it just manifests differently. I go out of my way not to lose my cool in these discussions, even when I'm getting insulted (which I was in this thread, numerous times), because I believe in the principle I put forth. My opponent argues in better faith than they appear to.

Allow me to be so presumptuous as to declare what I believe is the most important lesson in all of life.

The way most people divine the motivations of others is to put themselves in the other person's shoes.

This often provides the following result: I'd only do this if I were an asshole, therefore the other person is an asshole.

Everybody does this, and it's just wrong. Oh so wrong.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 22, 2017 at 11:08 AM. )
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2017, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
It is possible you have a bit more bias than you would like to admit? While it seems you believe you possess (and you most certainly project an image of) thoughtful neutrality, when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt, you construct logic-stretching justifications for the behaviour and statements of many right-wing figures- full of thoughtful and well meaning nuance. Yet you readily dismiss 'Democrats' and 'the left' as a single misguided entity.
Heal thyself, Doctor.

Weren't you the one on about how a bunch of DNS requests from a random Russian bank server about the Trump organization's main mail domain was evidence of a conspiracy?

Perhaps it is not his inability to find rationale to explain the behavior we see from individuals, but your complete inability to consider perspectives that are not your own?

This is my problem with with people like you. You always make sweeping generalisations. It kills me that I have to point out the intentional irony in this last statement, but sadly, I know the audience.
Ah, so your problem with "people like you" is that they make sweeping generalizations, justified in your mind by your own sweeping generalization?

If you recognize the irony of your stance as being a logical fallacy, how can you claim to put forth a valid observation?

You're full on displaying the big problem with "people like you" in that if we are not with you, we're against you. Guess what, we're against you in that scenario. Don't blame subego for trying to help you understand perspectives that aren't in lock step with your narrow worldview.

There is a difference between agreeing with a perspective and understanding it. Sadly, you are malicious in your failure at the latter which makes honest discussions turn into brain-dead poop flinging. Subego is one of the few here that virtually never slings poop, and your response to that is to acknowledge he doesn't fling poop then go back to your conspiracy land where since he doesn't agree with you, he must be secretly flinging poop.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2017, 01:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Heal thyself, Doctor.
I stopped engaging with you on the previous thread because you were getting so oddly heated, but I'm not going to stand by and let you lie about me.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Weren't you the one on about how a bunch of DNS requests from a random Russian bank server about the Trump organization's main mail domain was evidence of a conspiracy?
No. I never said anything remotely along those lines. You continually attacked me claiming I was, but I never did. You are just lying. I said the DNS activity was 'notable and weird' and the fact that it was being investigated was totally reasonable. After your final rant that it was impossible for unusual DNS activity to be anything to worry about because (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'the backbone of the internet is based on DNS' is such ignorant crap it wasn't worth responding to. This is how most attacks work- they exploit a vulnerability in a system- do a google search on DNS based attacks- pages of them, along with http based attacks, ftp based attacks, ssh based attacks, ICMP based attacks, SMS based attacks, etc, etc, etc.

I never claimed there was a conspiracy. I said on almost EVERY SINGLE post on the subject that the most likely scenario was that it was an innocent anomaly- and that even if there was something nefarious going on, the Trump server could easily have been the target of an attack rather than a participant in a conspiracy.

You can't just make stuff up about people and call it a argument.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Perhaps it is not his inability to find rationale to explain the behavior we see from individuals, but your complete inability to consider perspectives that are not your own?
Maybe so. But at least I don't attack people based on nonsense I've created in my own head.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Ah, so your problem with "people like you" is that they make sweeping generalizations, justified in your mind by your own sweeping generalization?

If you recognize the irony of your stance as being a logical fallacy, how can you claim to put forth a valid observation?

You're full on displaying the big problem with "people like you" in that if we are not with you, we're against you. Guess what, we're against you in that scenario. Don't blame subego for trying to help you understand perspectives that aren't in lock step with your narrow worldview.
Write an idiot-proof disclaimer, the world will make a bigger idiot.

MAYBE it wasn't clear, but I'm guessing Subego and the majority of the people that read that statement recognised it as it was intended, a joke. I was worried a few outliers may not pick up on the sarcasm so I begrudgingly added the disclaimer to make it clear.

But then you came along...

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
There is a difference between agreeing with a perspective and understanding it. Sadly, you are malicious in your failure at the latter which makes honest discussions turn into brain-dead poop flinging. Subego is one of the few here that virtually never slings poop, and your response to that is to acknowledge he doesn't fling poop then go back to your conspiracy land where since he doesn't agree with you, he must be secretly flinging poop.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume there is a coherent thought buried in here somewhere, but I'll be dammed if I can find it.
( Last edited by Paco500; Apr 25, 2017 at 04:32 AM. )
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2017, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I stopped engaging with you on the previous thread because you were getting so oddly heated, but I'm not going to stand by and let you lie about me.
There's no lying here Paco - everyone here saw the thread. I don't fault you for not understanding the technology. I fault you because I asked you a basic question about your argument with every lattitude including the hypothetical offered that you simply ignored. You called me heated as an excuse to bow out, but I only got heated when your intellect had already bowed out and your partisan shilling was all that was left.

No. I never said anything remotely along those lines. You continually attacked me claiming I was, but I never did. You are just lying. I said the DNS activity was 'notable and weird' and the fact that it was being investigated was totally reasonable.
You called for an investigation. That isn't you "just" calling it weird and notable.

Gun control is "weird and notable" and anyone advocating for it should be investigated. Prove it's not.

After your final rant that it was impossible for unusual DNS activity to be anything to worry about because (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'the backbone of the internet is based on DNS' is such ignorant crap it wasn't worth responding to.
Ok Mr. "I managed an IS security team" You got the paraphrasing wrong but we don't need to rehash it here. I asked you the same question 14 times in bold, in red, in italics, yet you never even addressed the question directly. This is what led to my frustration and my conclusion that you don't understand the technology, as it's answer(s) would be the foundation of literally any basis for wrongdoing possible.


This is how most attacks work- they exploit a vulnerability in a system- do a google search on DNS based attacks- pages of them, along with http based attacks, ftp based attacks, ssh based attacks, ICMP based attacks, SMS based attacks, etc, etc, etc.
So, as part of Trump colluding with the Russians a random bank server was planning a DNS or another attack on his organization's general mail server to ....do what exactly? Weird collusion that would be.

I never claimed there was a conspiracy. I said on almost EVERY SINGLE post on the subject that the most likely scenario was that it was an innocent anomaly-
You never said it was "the most likely". Far from it - if that were "the most likely" in your mind you wouldn't have been calling for an investigation. Sure I was hyperbolic, but my more reasoned approach was simply ignored in your responses. I would have been happy if you could have answered my one question that I kept asking over and over to no avail.


and that even if there was something nefarious going on, the Trump server could easily have been the target of an attack rather than a participant in a conspiracy.
So do you believe the FBI should investigate every DNS request run from russia on government any servers related to high ranking government officials? Afterall, they would all be "weird and notable" by your definition.

You can't just make stuff up about people and call it a argument. [/quote]
I can't really make an argument against conspiracy theories and other logical fallacies. Trash in, trash out. I told you early you would get what you give.
Maybe so. But at least I don't attack people based on nonsense I've created in my own head.
You just did it, here in this thread, with your "disclaimer".

Write an idiot-proof disclaimer, the world will make a bigger idiot.
I know the audience here isn't a disclaimer. It's an insult that demonstrates your obvious feelings of supposed moral superiority. In other words, you like the smell of your own farts too much.

MAYBE it wasn't clear, but I'm guessing Subego and the majority of the people that read that statement recognised it as it was intended, a joke. I was worried a few outliers may not pick up on the sarcasm so I begrudgingly added the disclaimer to make it clear.
So you start by calling into question his motives, then end with a "sarcastic joke" that contains an insult about "the audience here"? Forgive me Paco, but your attempt at a light-hearted jab was poorly constructed.

But then you came along...

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume there is a coherent thought buried in here somewhere, but I'll be dammed if I can find it.
I'd be more than happy to help you understand the perspectives not aligned with your narrative which seem to give you trouble, but you've got to be open to listening with an assumption of good-faith. All I can promise is that you will receive the same courtesy in turn. Like I've said - you'll get what you give.


/derail

Legit question for all - What benefit do you think the government collecting this data would have over the myriad private entities that have already done so?
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2017, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
There's no lying here Paco - everyone here saw the thread.
And what did I say in the thread?
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
you are correct that there is no proof of anything wrong or illegal happening
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
While there is very possibly a completely innocent explanation for this
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Again, it's entirely possible there is an innocent explanation here
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
There could be a perfectly innocent explanation for this
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I've said more than once in my replies that there is likely a perfectly innocuous explanation for this
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
It's weird and notable, but not necessarily evidence of anything nefarious.
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
They haven't found anything, and they may never do so. There may be nothing to find. If they do find something, Trump (or his people) could be involved or they could be victims
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Some are screaming conspiracy, true. I was, however, doing my best to explain to you and others that while it was a poorly written article, the investigation was understandable.
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Still very possibly (perhaps even likely) nothing
Can you point to EVEN ONCE where I alleged a conspiracy? Quote it, and I'll own it. Otherwise, consider an apology and calm down.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2017, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I personally think there's an excellent reason to ban directly measuring the number of guns in the country.
You're going to have to clarify because this sounds absurd.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Global warming isn't a subject I pay much attention to, so my authority to comment is limited, however my experience has been the fundamentals of the argument apply across the board.

The opposing team acts in better faith than they appear to.
You're dodging the question. What's a good faith reason to outright ban environmental research?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2017, 07:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You're dodging the question.
In other words, I have behaved in such a manner further discussion necessitates an accusation of arguing in bad faith. If this is fair then I shall lie in the bed I have made.

I don't think it's fair and will leave it at that.

I don't know the context of the ban, so I can't judge it. This whole tangent has been about the superficially absurd being less so when understood in context.

For instance, directly measuring the number of guns in the country would necessitate a database of gun owners. The utility of guns as a check against the government would be severely threatened by the existence of such a database. Even if that wasn't an issue, how does one justify the expenditure of resources (it would be Census scale) when the number can be extrapolated from data the ATF collects?

What I do know of global warming involves behavior on the behalf of Republicans which certainly appears absurd to me. I'm sure a good deal of it is, just like there is with guns, however I trust my instincts at least some of it is more complicated than it appears on the surface. Just like with guns. If there's a specific ban in question, point me towards it and I'll endeavor to provide my best analysis.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2017, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
And what did I say in the thread?





Can you point to EVEN ONCE where I alleged a conspiracy? Quote it, and I'll own it. Otherwise, consider an apology and calm down.
Ask and ye shall receive.
Originally Posted by Paco
While there is very possibly a completely innocent explanation for this, to pretend it's not weird or notable is being disingenuous.
Originally Posted by Paco
but a good bit of that is down to the reality that people associated with Trump, his campaign, and his administration have an extraordinary number of connections to Russia, and far too many of them keep getting caught lying about it. Again, to pretend this is not notable is being disingenuous.
Originally Posted by Paco
That whatever kind of lookup the server from the Russian bank was doing, it accounted for 80% of all of these operations for the Trump server. I believe this is weird in and of itself. I believe it's notable because of all of known connections between Trump associates and appointees have to various Russian interests, of which we keep finding more because his people have been continually caught lying about them.

In isolation, it's nothing. As it is, it is part of a pattern. I will again quote:
6) All of this adds up to this situation being worthy of investigation.
"I never claimed it was a conspiracy, but certainly I believe it should be investigated as one!"


Originally Posted by Snow-i
What information could be gleaned from any DNS requests that could indicate any malfeasance?
Originally Posted by Snow-i
You've not yet made a clear case for how such DNS requests could be used nefariously or would be a consequence of other nefarious actions.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
You continually state that the DNS request are weird and notable, yet when I press you on what about the DNS requests could possibly be weird or notable, "the conversation is going nowhere".
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Please tell me how any DNS request could possibly be weird or notable.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Please tell me how this could possibly be weird or notable. We established this early on.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
HOW SO?! DON'T EVEN TELL ME BASED ON THIS ARTICLE, JUST TELL ME HOW ANY DNS REQUESTS OF ANY NUMBER, USING ANY COMMAND COULD POSSIBLY BE WEIRD OR NOTABLE.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
LIKE WHAT?!??!???????????????????????????????:br ick::bri ck::bric k:
Originally Posted by Snow-i
How? because there's like 6 to choose from and you can run them from your own computer!

You never did answer the question.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2017, 05:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
"I never claimed it was a conspiracy, but certainly I believe it should be investigated as one!"
I will concede that if you infer from my words ideas I neither wrote nor intended, I claimed there was a conspiracy. By that same test, I also argued the world was flat, the Queen is a lizard person, and I have heat vision.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Please tell me how any DNS request could possibly be weird or notable.
...
You never did answer the question.
Here are ten DNS based attacks. If that's not enough, here is a link to hundreds of articles talking about DNS vulnerabilities.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2017, 09:24 AM
 
Allow me to request a brief cease-fire to thank Snow for his kind words!

Okay. The killing may resume.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2017, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I will concede that if you infer from my words ideas I neither wrote nor intended, I claimed there was a conspiracy. By that same test, I also argued the world was flat, the Queen is a lizard person, and I have heat vision.
Are you calling for an investigation into those things? Because there's about as much credence to the DNS requests being worthy of investigation, as you've called for, as there are for the Queen being a lizard person. Should the FBI investigate that too?

Which is it?
Should there be an investigation into these DNS requests to see if Trump and Russia were colluding?
Or is the "most likely" explanation that there's nothing there?

You've twisted your argument so much with your disclaimers and your doublespeak that you've made two seperate claims that represent completely opposite viewpoints, while maintaining that your arguments are somehow consistent.

Claim 1.
Originally Posted by Paco
6) All of this adds up to this situation being worthy of investigation.
Claim 2.
Originally Posted by Paco
I said on almost EVERY SINGLE post on the subject that the most likely scenario was that it was an innocent anomaly.
Do I need to point how ridiculous this is? With a straight face, you're arguing that "most likely" there's nothing there, but "all this adds up to a situation worthy of investigation". Methinks you just got caught being a partisan shill without understanding the facts, and are trying to doublespeak your way out of it.


Here are ten DNS based attacks. If that's not enough, here is a link to hundreds of articles talking about DNS vulnerabilities.
DNS vulnerabilities? So now you believe the Russians' bank server were going to attack the main mail server of the Trump organization? How would that lend credence to the assertion that Trump should be investigated for collusion? The bank's servers and trump's mail server never talked. What are we investigating for again?

Are you now making a third claim that we should investigate to see if a Russian bank was planning a malware attack on Trump's organization?
( Last edited by Snow-i; Apr 28, 2017 at 01:36 PM. )
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2017, 06:00 PM
 
Ok.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2017, 06:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Ok.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2017, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Allow me to request a brief cease-fire to thank Snow for his kind words!

Okay. The killing may resume.
I've seen you bite your tongue more often than not in the face of poop-flinging from both sides and take quickly devolving discussions back on track using tact and eloquence that quite frankly, I envy. It's inconceivable to me that anyone here left or right could fling poop at your motives and I'm certain Lam* (who's definitely not affiliated with the left), Dakar, OAW, and our other friends who may or may not be on the left, would not take issue with that assessment.

Now that we appear to be settled there, back to the other topic:

I guess my question is:
With the "government" being banned from collecting the data on guns - why can't private institutions/universities fill in the gap?

The main argument is that the CDC has an agenda and it's not okay for government entities to have agendas on political issues, specifically gun control in this instance (correct me if I am wrong). Why wouldn't we shift the burden then to those institutions that can have those agendas and let them make their cases before the public? It's not like they aren't qualified.


*The above statement should not be construed in any way to mean that Laminar is affiliated with any particular ideology or political party.
( Last edited by Snow-i; May 1, 2017 at 05:17 PM. Reason: Clarity)
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2017, 07:20 AM
 
Given the government as a whole has a bought and paid for agenda courtesy of the NRA and the gun makers, isn't it only fair to have some small corner of the government go the other way?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2017, 12:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I've seen you bite your tongue more often than not in the face of poop-flinging from both sides and take quickly devolving discussions back on track using tact and eloquence that quite frankly, I envy. It's inconceivable to me that anyone here left or right could fling poop at your motives and I'm certain Dakar, Lam, OAW, and our other friends on the left would not take issue with that assessment.

Now that we appear to be settled there, back to the other topic:

I guess my question is:
With the "government" being banned from collecting the data on guns - why can't private institutions/universities fill in the gap?

The main argument is that the CDC has an agenda and it's not okay for government entities to have agendas on political issues, specifically gun control in this instance (correct me if I am wrong). Why wouldn't we shift the burden then to those institutions that can have those agendas and let them make their cases before the public? It's not like they aren't qualified.
Well, thank you again.

I think what demonstrates the CDC had a genuinely crummy attitude is to them, the pursuit of the science stopped being of value the moment they couldn't use it to lord over public policy.

It shouldn't be that hard to conduct research without an agenda. One might even argue that's one of the things science is about.

The Republicans can be fairly knocked for defunding the CDC. I would argue against it. However, if this research has the value people claim it to have (which I believe it does), then I find it hard to believe everything else the CDC has on its plate is of greater value, and none of that could get the axe instead.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2017, 12:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Given the government as a whole has a bought and paid for agenda courtesy of the NRA and the gun makers
Prime example.

     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2017, 06:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Given the government as a whole has a bought and paid for agenda courtesy of the NRA and the gun makers, isn't it only fair to have some small corner of the government go the other way?
Just stop watching TV and movies, FFS. Geez.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2017, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Just stop watching TV and movies, FFS. Geez.
Two thirds of the populace are in favour of sensible gun control laws like background checks and not selling guns to people on terror lists but two thirds or more of your government officials can't vote in favour without expecting to lose their seats. This time its you living in fairytale land.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2017, 05:50 PM
 
A supposed 2/3rds want gun control yet most of congress is afraid that a majority of their constituents will vote against them if they try to enact it? Riiiiiight. We already have those laws in place, and more. If SAGs and DAs don't enforce the measures we already have, WTF makes you think they'll enforce new ones? Do you think the sheer volume of legislation sitting on their desks will make them think differently about things?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2017, 10:57 PM
 
I think they're more afraid that their campaign funds will be withdrawn and given to other candidates.

Would extended background checks be enforced if they were implemented? Of course they would. Its just a question of more "no"s coming back when the check is run. This is just you hiding behind RW rhetoric. I don't think you used to do that but you seem to do it all the time nowadays.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 03:52 AM
 
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahba...ected-n2181256

Our BG checks are already extensive, waiting changes nothing and flags happen all the time, blocking people from purchases. The rest is another of your pitiful deflections.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 08:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Two thirds of the populace are in favour of sensible gun control laws like background checks and not selling guns to people on terror lists but two thirds or more of your government officials can't vote in favour without expecting to lose their seats. This time its you living in fairytale land.
SENSIBLE! LOL
So what would be "sensible" to you?
But that IS a judgement call.
Nothing absolute, just another slippery slope to go down.

How good is a background check when doctor-patient confidentiality blocks doctors from informing the authorities when someone is a wack job?
Do you have any idea what the NRA actually does, or its history?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Do you have any idea what the NRA actually does, or its history?
Here's a little snapshot:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/sum...?id=d000000082

In the 2016 election cycle they spent nearly 37 million dollars campaigning against Democratic candidates.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm certain Dakar, Lam, OAW, and our other friends on the left
Wait...why am I on the left again?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Here's a little snapshot:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/sum...?id=d000000082

In the 2016 election cycle they spent nearly 37 million dollars campaigning against Democratic candidates.
And of course the .ORG means they are political in nature. Their description of the NRA is also wrong. I don't doubt how much the NRA donated. How much has your hero George Soros contributed to the lefties? Perspective anyone.
So much for you knowing their history either.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
And of course the .ORG means they are political in nature.


Their description of the NRA is also wrong. I don't doubt how much the NRA donated. How much has your hero George Soros contributed to the lefties?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Wait...why am I on the left again?
I was more referencing you as a respected member of the community rather than affiliating you with an ideology.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Two thirds of the populace are in favour of sensible gun control laws like background checks and not selling guns to people on terror lists but two thirds or more of your government officials can't vote in favour without expecting to lose their seats. This time its you living in fairytale land.
You're gonna have to cite the study that showed 2/3rds of the population favors suspending constitutional rights without due process.

I don't understand how you can champion civil rights, then call for one of them to be suspended without so much as a hearing or a way to reverse decisions. Don't you know that if you do this for one right, the gov't can then do this for all?

How do you reconcile your position with the idea that the 1st amendment can be suspended if you make a secret government naughty list? 4th amendment?

Secret lists are not valid and a fundamental enemy of a free society. Regardless of your stance on guns themselves, do the ends really justify the means in your mind? Is the bill of rights that unimportant to you?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I was more referencing you as a respected member of the community rather than affiliating you with an ideology.
If that was your intent, the word "other" hurts your case.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You're gonna have to cite the study that showed 2/3rds of the population favors suspending constitutional rights without due process.
Are constitutional 2nd amendment rights not already being stomped all over?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Are constitutional 2nd amendment rights not already being stomped all over?
I'm not sure what you're arguing here - that the bill of rights is already being shredded means we ought to not worry about the bill of rights being further encro...., sorry wholesale suspended without due process?

If anything, that's even more reason to oppose gun-control as any precedent set for the 2nd will apply to any and all other civil rights. Unless that is you (in the general sense) believe that civil rights are unnecessary and again, that the ends justify the means.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
If that was your intent, the word "other" hurts your case.
Apologies - next time I be sure to avoid offending your definitely not leftist sensitivities.

Fixed.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Given the government as a whole has a bought and paid for agenda courtesy of the NRA and the gun makers, isn't it only fair to have some small corner of the government go the other way?
Tell ya what - I've got a compromise for you - let's give em a small page on an obscure state department website for UK citizens normally reserved for hotel endorsements. That way, the target audience (liberals with a predetermined conclusion) will all get to read about it, and literally no one else on the face of the earth except for a couple crumpet nibblers interested in the USVP's job will see it.

Sounds like a fair compromise to me.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 06:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Here's a little snapshot:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/sum...?id=d000000082

In the 2016 election cycle they spent nearly 37 million dollars campaigning against Democratic candidates.
The link shows $1m in direct contributions (rank 427) and $3.2m in lobbying (rank 156). The outside spending they were 8th. At the top, the "priorities action USA" democratic super pac spent $102m against republicans. I'm not seeing your metric as particularly noteworthy.


To put into context, their campaign contributions ranked 427th. Lobbying 156. Nothing extraordinary :shrug:
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 08:57 PM
 
Bought and paid for. Welcome to America.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You're gonna have to cite the study that showed 2/3rds of the population favors suspending constitutional rights without due process.
If you're going to grossly misquote me then I'm not going to bother citing anything at all.
I said "sensible gun control laws". The figure of 2/3 should strongly imply that even most on the right agree that the measures I'm talking about are sensible. There are some changes that most Americans would be happy to see enshrined in law because they are just obvious. So pick laws that fit my figure rather than the other way around.
For example, there is no-fly list of suspected terrorists who cannot board a plane, but these people are allowed to buy guns? Madness. If you ban a terrorist from flying in case he takes a plane down and he was actually planning to take the plane down, surely his second choice is going to be buying a gun and going on a spree? Probably incurs similar costs to the plane ticket if he's a discerning shopper. Sounds like one of your favourite arguments in favour of 2A doesn't it?

Had air travel existed at the time, it seems likely that your right to fly domestically would be considered even more fundamental than your right to own something just in case you needed to overthrow the government. I don't suppose it occurred to anyone that travel in a carriage or on a boat might ever require prohibition for any reason. I'm sure you'll disagree if just to be awkward.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
How do you reconcile your position with the idea that the 1st amendment can be suspended if you make a secret government naughty list? 4th amendment?
The only list I mentioned already exists. If you don't like that list then thats a whole other discussion. I might not disagree with you either.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Secret lists are not valid and a fundamental enemy of a free society. Regardless of your stance on guns themselves, do the ends really justify the means in your mind? Is the bill of rights that unimportant to you?
Again, I'm not looking to create any new lists here. I don't think 2/3 would support a register even I think its sensible. We have such a register and those on it are expected to report themselves if they begin to experience mental health issues. People actually do as well, and I call them genuinely responsible gun owners. I can't see that you lot would be so diligent, can you?
Maybe certain therapists and psychiatrists should be required to suggest to new patients that they surrender their guns for the duration of their treatment? I'm guessing you'd be against them flagging people automatically on the background check system? Perhaps it would discourage people from seeking much needed help if they did?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 09:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
How good is a background check when doctor-patient confidentiality blocks doctors from informing the authorities when someone is a wack job?
There is already an exception for those who pose risk to themselves or others. Doesn't seem much of a stretch that someone who is mentally or emotionally unstable poses a greater risk when armed.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 09:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If you're going to grossly misquote me then I'm not going to bother citing anything at all. I said "sensible gun control laws".
The No-Fly List blows. Suggesting it isn't sensible.

Also, my guess is using it for gun control would be a violation of both the 2nd and 14th Amendments.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2017, 10:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If you're going to grossly misquote me then I'm not going to bother citing anything at all.
I said "sensible gun control laws". The figure of 2/3 should strongly imply that even most on the right agree that the measures I'm talking about are sensible.
You didn't make a distinction between your 2/3rds statement and the no-fly list.
There are some changes that most Americans would be happy to see enshrined in law because they are just obvious. So pick laws that fit my figure rather than the other way around.
[citation needed]
Or do you think that literally any law restricting guns is good without understanding the law itself, it's impacts, or it's effectiveness?
For example, there is no-fly list of suspected terrorists who cannot board a plane, but these people are allowed to buy guns? Madness.
Madness is:
-the list is secret
-the list is arbitrary
-there is no way to find out if you are on this list
-there is no way to fight your presence on this list
-this list is outside any judicial process.
-thinking the list is somehow more important than or should take precedence over the constitution.

If you ban a terrorist from flying in case he takes a plane down and he was actually planning to take the plane down, surely his second choice is going to be buying a gun and going on a spree? Probably incurs similar costs to the plane ticket if he's a discerning shopper. Sounds like one of your favourite arguments in favour of 2A doesn't it?
Because this terrorist would certainly be interested in obtaining his weapons of choice legally. Common sense would dictate that this would not be the case.
Had air travel existed at the time, it seems likely that your right to fly domestically would be considered even more fundamental than your right to own something just in case you needed to overthrow the government.
Plenty of forms of travel existed - none of these are mentioned in the constitution. Travel was even more commonplace than arms at the time.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone that travel in a carriage or on a boat might ever require prohibition for any reason. I'm sure you'll disagree if just to be awkward.
Why would you make this assumption? You're saying the founders were just oblivious to the idea of a government restricting travel?




The only list I mentioned already exists. If you don't like that list then thats a whole other discussion. I might not disagree with you either.
Here's a list of reasons why you are wrong. Hope you don't mind these far right NRA funded sources!

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-free...oples-freedoms
https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington...e-guns-america
^ there's the ACLU agreeing with me

Guns and the no-fly list: Whatever happened to due process? - LA Times
^LA times

Constitutionality of the No Fly List - National Security Law Brief

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ban-gun-sales/
^538

You'll notice that none of these organizations are exactly pro-gun.

Again, I'm not looking to create any new lists here.
Just make the arbitrary, secret, and government controlled list more powerful than the bill of rights. What could go wrong?
I don't think 2/3 would support a register even I think its sensible. We have such a register and those on it are expected to report themselves if they begin to experience mental health issues.
Yes because terrorists are keen to report themselves to US authorities before buying their weapons.

People actually do as well, and I call them genuinely responsible gun owners. I can't see that you lot would be so diligent, can you?
You used the word diligent wrong. I bought my guns legally, and perform my due diligence in their storage and handling. I don't need to appeal to a "higher" authority in order to do so.

Maybe certain therapists and psychiatrists should be required to suggest to new patients that they surrender their guns for the duration of their treatment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process
^You really need to read about what this is and why it's so important.

I'm guessing you'd be against them flagging people automatically on the background check system? Perhaps it would discourage people from seeking much needed help if they did?
See my response just above. Anything you suggest that lacks due process is a non-starter for me and the majority of my American brothers and sisters, including the ACLU.
( Last edited by Snow-i; May 1, 2017 at 10:59 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 06:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The No-Fly List blows. Suggesting it isn't sensible.

Also, my guess is using it for gun control would be a violation of both the 2nd and 14th Amendments.
As I say, thats another discussion. I'm not suggesting the list, it already exists. If you can't be trusted to board a vehicle which probably has armed security on board having passed through stringent security yourself in order to do so because you still can't be trusted not to blow up or crash the plane, then allowing you to drive around loaded up with guns ammo and body armour to a public place of your choice seems unwise to say the least.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 07:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You didn't make a distinction between your 2/3rds statement and the no-fly list.

I didn't really make any distinction at all as to the nature of the 'sensible' legislation. My position is there is common sense things that can be done but aren't even properly considered. Yours seems to be that no legislation of any kind that restricts access to guns is sensible or even worth looking at. This is as stupid as it is disingenuous.

Maybe you think libraries should be banned for infringing your right to free speech?

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
[citation needed]
Or do you think that literally any law restricting guns is good without understanding the law itself, it's impacts, or it's effectiveness?

Madness is:
-the list is secret
-the list is arbitrary
-there is no way to find out if you are on this list
-there is no way to fight your presence on this list
-this list is outside any judicial process.
-thinking the list is somehow more important than or should take precedence over the constitution.
Again, the list exists. Using it to stop terrorists buying guns is only sensible as long as it exists.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Because this terrorist would certainly be interested in obtaining his weapons of choice legally. Common sense would dictate that this would not be the case.
Common sense dictates that a terrorist would choose to buy illegal guns? You've noticed that many of them don't plan on surviving to repeat their attacks right? Apparently common sense is not something you have.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Plenty of forms of travel existed - none of these are mentioned in the constitution. Travel was even more commonplace than arms at the time.
You imagine the founding fathers entertained the notion that the land of the free would ban someone from travelling as a coach passenger? On a horse perhaps? Theres that common sense again. Way in the distance, staying out of your reach.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Why would you make this assumption? You're saying the founders were just oblivious to the idea of a government restricting travel?
Firstly they were all about freedom. Secondly, steering a coach into a building would only hurt the coach. And the horses would likely stop you doing it. Hijacking a boat is more likely, but I think even in a port that would have been piracy and punishable by death so need to ban anyone from boat travel there either.






Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Here's a list of reasons why you are wrong. Hope you don't mind these far right NRA funded sources!

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-free...oples-freedoms
https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington...e-guns-america
^ there's the ACLU agreeing with me

Guns and the no-fly list: Whatever happened to due process? - LA Times
^LA times

Constitutionality of the No Fly List - National Security Law Brief

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ban-gun-sales/
^538

You'll notice that none of these organizations are exactly pro-gun.


Just make the arbitrary, secret, and government controlled list more powerful than the bill of rights. What could go wrong?

Still harping on about a list that isn't mine. No surprises that the ACLU and others don't like it. I keep hearing about expanded background checks, people must have something in mind when they say this?
The point stands. As long as you are using lists to ban travelling, you should ban them from all easily accessible and preventable forms of mass murder.
Common sense.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Yes because terrorists are keen to report themselves to US authorities before buying their weapons.
And their plane tickets.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You used the word diligent wrong. I bought my guns legally, and perform my due diligence in their storage and handling. I don't need to appeal to a "higher" authority in order to do so.
Higher authority? Wut?
If you suddenly started having thoughts about wanting to shoot lots of random strangers would you hand in your guns? Or give them to someone else to lock away from you?

Serious question.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process
^You really need to read about what this is and why it's so important.
If only there was one for you about common sense.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
See my response just above. Anything you suggest that lacks due process is a non-starter for me and the majority of my American brothers and sisters, including the ACLU.
I'm going to re-iterate my original very general point because apparently any example I give will be seized upon and not let go of. There are measures that can be taken that most people consider sensible. They don't get implemented because the gun lobby doesn't want them. You pick the measures if you like but if you can't think of a single thing, then there is something wrong with you and you need to ask yourself what and why and how you can be so afraid of elected officials without the slightest trace of skepticism for a profit-driven lobbying organisation that you know has incredible influence over those same elected officials and is ultimately one of the reasons you ought to be so paranoid about them in the damned first place.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Apologies - next time I be sure to avoid offending your definitely not leftist sensitivities.
But...like...which ones? I have yet to see someone actually accurately represent my positions. As soon as I revealed that I caucused for Bernie, it was like a switch flipped and everyone has already decided everything that I stand for.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 02:30 PM
 
I've pegged you as having a mild case of the Libertarians, though that may be confirmation bias on my part.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 02:43 PM
 
"Everyone's dumb, trust no one, but let's try to help each other not die" is about as succinct as I can get it. I mean, if I cut out the parts about George Soros being my idol and hating the constitution.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 03:04 PM
 
Not die? There goes all your Libertarian credibility.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 03:44 PM
 
The first meeting of the Paranoid Altruist Party is now in session.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:29 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,