Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
amaranthine
Aug 27, 2009
I AM A TERRIBLE HUMAN BEING

escape artist posted:

Holy poo poo! I love(d) Dennis. What has he done?!

After a lifetime of doing the right thing and not getting paid, he's finally getting his. I'm all for it.

Plus, if anyone's going to represent liberals to people who hate them, it might as well be someone that's actually a liberal.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

fart blood
Sep 13, 2008

by VideoGames
The best part of tonight's episode was when the subject was Manti Tei'o, and everyone was offering insight, and then Rula Jebreal chimes in quite coldly with "Why are we talking about this idiot when so much terrible stuff is out there?" It was gold. She looked like she didn't want to be there, though.

ExiledTinkerer
Nov 4, 2009
Yeah, she seemed a bit out of her depth at being surprised for Bill being "vulgar" on the one bit---this is HBO!

Otherwise, I give it an "eh" on account of much of the panel being pretty blah alongside the first guest that seemed to be living in a fantasy land of denial, the Final New Rule being a good opener for the season, and apparently something got borked with Overtime so now I gotta randomly check the site the next few days instead of my usual routine of having it wake me up come Sat morning. Thankfully the one guy chimed in with some sense on the ridiculous video game violence canard.

Next week is gonna be weird with the big Dem lean with Pelosi and Dean and the rest.

Zogo
Jul 29, 2003

ExiledTinkerer posted:

Next week is gonna be weird with the big Dem lean with Pelosi and Dean and the rest.

These first two episodes have been duds for the most part.

The low points were Michelle Caruso-Cabrera saying we needed LESS financial regulation in 2008. And I don't even remember who blamed shootings on video games. I did find that guy funny who was offended by the use of the word "right-wing."

I'm glad Bill seemed to say what no one else on TV has been willing to say about the recent gun issues in the US. MSNBC and Fox News were both acting like these were bold new changes put forth by Obama. Listening to some you would've thought that Obama had ordered gun manufacturing to a halt in the country and put an embargo into effect. BTW could he do that if he wanted? It'd bypass the second amendment issue entirely. I believe the US already produces the most in the world.

Tree Dude
May 26, 2012

AND MY SONG IS...
I only just remembered that I missed an episode and I agree that it was mostly another snoozer. Something clicked in me while watching it and I couldn't take my eyes off the annoying hand talking all episode. I thought the woman on the panel was going to karate chop through the table. My fear is that this happens every episode and now I wont be able to unsee it.

ExiledTinkerer
Nov 4, 2009
Yeah, that woman was terrible as always, Mr. Right Wing was essentially something like a sentient sweater vest for Jindal, and the pollster gal lost whatever loose footing she had when she unwittingly gave "that look" the second Dean started in on the voting manipulation that was building steam and subverting the democratic process.

Super Deuce
May 25, 2006
TOILETS
Oh, I like the smell of my own dumps.
The funniest part of her hand talking was when she blatantly started copying Howard Dean's hand talking.

ApexAftermath
May 24, 2006

I got pretty worried when they started to wade into the abortion discussion. Hand chopper seemed like she was about to have a meltdown. Thank god that Dean was able to gracefully pull the discussion away from that.

Zogo
Jul 29, 2003

All this hand talking is creeping me out. You all did see Tester showing off his hand in OT right?

gary oldmans diary
Sep 26, 2005
Why did Sam Harris ("philosopher") feel the need to mention on the pro-republican side that guns are an equalizer? That isn't a pro-republican side point. That point is supported by both sides -neither side is trying to take everyone's guns away.
Cory Booker was right. Sam Harris was pitting the view of the right-wing vs what the right-wing says the left-wing view is. However those far-left "comin' for your guns" views don't actual represent the social intentions of any influential political groups.
He didn't actually describe the strawman, but thinking that "pro-republican" point makes any sense only indicates that that's what argument it's up against.
Then we waste 5 minutes of air time because nobody was sharp enough to get what Booker wanted to articulate.

And his crap about how Obama's initiatives against assault weapons are worthless because assault weapons aren't the biggest source of gun crime. Apparently, you're only allowed to propose things that instantaneously solve problems without compromises (if you're Obama). No intermediate steps allowed.
What, 30-round clip sizes are great for home defense? Yeah, in the post-gun-illegalization fantasy world this guy imagines where the most likely scenario for home defense involves a 40-man cannibalistic rape gangs boarding your house from atop their steel-cage-reinforced rape semitrailer. Oh, if only Obama hadn't taken away all the guns...

Zogo
Jul 29, 2003

Hogburto posted:

However those far-left "comin' for your guns" views don't actual represent the social intentions of any influential political groups.

I thought one of his points was that it'd be preferable for the left to take a stance like that and that no matter how tough present and future restrictions are put into place (for future gun transactions) the most important variable is that of the 300+ million guns currently in circulation in the US. Also, that the US has a religious attachment to the second amendment.
He wants gun licensing to be done in the same manner as pilots are licensed. I imagine this is far from the mainstream sentiment.

The one thing that I never see discussed on any form of media: What are the main reasons people are shooting each other in the US? Why do people do drive-bys in cities? Has anyone broken down the murder stats by motive on a national level? Because preachers, police officers and politicians, in the Chicagoland area at least, like to throw out rhetoric like "these were some 'STONE COLD KILLERS' that did this." Saw that very quote today on TV about a drive-by shooting.

gary oldmans diary
Sep 26, 2005

Zogo posted:

I thought one of his points was that it'd be preferable for the left to take a stance like that
Either way, since that still doesn't represent the intentions of the left, he was posing an argument that defeats a straw man as a point for the right. Not sure if he was playing up the "I'm gonna upset people on both sides with how unbiased I am" angle he went in with or if it was his intention to present a false equivalency between the right and left.
Booker was the one pushing the point of the secondary gun market problem and Harris went along with it and made the blanket statement that he supports all gun regulations the left want and then some (not sure if this was before or after his needless criticisms of Obama's tentative steps toward gun control). He was all over the place like he was trying to please everybody. I think he was more interested in selling copies of his book than having an actual discussion.

az
Dec 2, 2005

Watching Booker on talk tv always makes me a bit upset because he is such a nice, affable and photogenic politician, it seems certain to me that he will be run the gently caress over by hardass political operatives as soon as he gets into the inner circle of high politics from Senator and above.

edit: Getting into the segment with Harris now makes me want to punch a guy. Equalizer my rear end.

edit2: Now I understand why this show needs a token republican every week. If there isn't one, Maher starts talking over his best liberal guests.

az fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Feb 3, 2013

Alec Bald Snatch
Sep 12, 2012

by exmarx

Zogo posted:

The one thing that I never see discussed on any form of media: What are the main reasons people are shooting each other in the US? Why do people do drive-bys in cities? Has anyone broken down the murder stats by motive on a national level?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10

az
Dec 2, 2005


Lmao why is "Romantic triangle" a felony on that list.

escape artist
Sep 24, 2005

Slow train coming

az posted:

Lmao why is "Romantic triangle" a felony on that list.

Uhhh... It's not. That's why it's in the "other than felony" list.

az
Dec 2, 2005

escape artist posted:

Uhhh... It's not. That's why it's in the "other than felony" list.

Oh well that ruined the funny but still, what's that got to do on that list. And why the hell are sniper attacks, gang and institutional killings not felonies.

Zogo
Jul 29, 2003


That's a pretty good start. Although some of the columns and rows are still very ambiguous. Nearly one quarter of the murders are "other arguments." Nearly half the murder relation column is "Unknown." The rows labeled "gangland killings", "juvenile gang", other (not specified). Only eight murders over gambling.

390 killed because of "narcotic drug laws." I'm confused by what that means.

Hogburto posted:

...he was posing an argument that defeats a straw man as a point for the right.

What was it exactly? Aren't there some leftists that don't want any guns in any schools?

Hogburto posted:

Not sure if he was playing up the "I'm gonna upset people on both sides with how unbiased I am" angle he went in with or if it was his intention to present a false equivalency between the right and left. Booker was the one pushing the point of the secondary gun market problem and Harris went along with it and made the blanket statement that he supports all gun regulations the left want and then some

I thought he was siding more with the left than the right. He called the NRA "odious" and seemed to take an extreme left position on gun ownership. We both watched the show and it feels like we saw two different programs.

Hogburto posted:

(not sure if this was before or after his needless criticisms of Obama's tentative steps toward gun control). He was all over the place like he was trying to please everybody. I think he was more interested in selling copies of his book than having an actual discussion.

You believe that Obama's plans are enough? If not, then shouldn't they be up for criticism?
Everyone that goes on this show with a book is interesting in selling it, yes.

ExiledTinkerer
Nov 4, 2009
Why was Jackie Kucinich even there? Bill seemed genuinely mortified at her lackluster "crazy on all sides" angle, so it couldn't have been to play that particular foil. Beyond that, I think she may well have been the most quiet panelist in recent memory. This panel was one Dennis would've been jumping around in, especially on the gun discussion...hell even his wife would've put more effort than what happened.

Booker fared a bit better in OT, but in general did pretty well versus the lot.

gary oldmans diary
Sep 26, 2005

Zogo posted:

What was it exactly? Aren't there some leftists that don't want any guns in any schools?
He didn't specify in schools. In his opening arguments, he called it a point for the right that guns are an equalizer. That would only need to be pointed out (and be a point for either side) if a side wanted to take guns out of the equation, as he's pretending.
Although having more guns around kids all day everywhere as a reaction to school massacres which we have relatively few of is also pretty dumb. Guns in schools is a separate issue from broad citizen's rights gun control, however.

Zogo posted:

I thought he was siding more with the left than the right. He called the NRA "odious" and seemed to take an extreme left position on gun ownership. We both watched the show and it feels like we saw two different programs.
His comments against the NRA and in support of gun control only came as reaction to what Booker said as a vague, total agreement as though he wanted to appear neutral to all parties. Every specific example prior to things getting heated he criticized gun control measures.

Zogo posted:

You believe that Obama's plans are enough? If not, then shouldn't they be up for criticism?
Everyone that goes on this show with a book is interesting in selling it, yes.
No, I don't believe Obama's plans are an instant successful and perfect solution to the gun problem. But there are no all-at-once solutions as insisted on by people like Harris who criticize them for their lack of huge effect -absolutely pointless criticism that only self-servingly makes you look critical of weak gun control to the left and critical of any gun control to the right.
People can try to sell their books while actually holding and supporting real political beliefs instead of shifting your political positions to try to stay in the marketable middle ground. This guy was interested in shilling, not sincere discussion.

"It is always gonna be easier for career criminals to get guns" (against gun control) > Corey Booker explains that that's bullshit > vague concession that of course I am totally for gun control...

"The NRA is an odious organization; I think they should just be crushed and Wayne Lapierre has... *applause* ...The problem however is Wayne Lapierre as goofy as he is makes sense when you're talking about the reality of what needs to happen when bullets are flyin'."
-In other words, "I'm totally against the NRA... except on their stances with political issues."

He'll attack gun control from the president, express his support of assault weapons and the need to not ban all guns (a non-issue), and as soon as pressure comes on from the left and he picks up that he's starting to appear right-wing he'll say he's for all gun control.

It's easy to watch this guy a 2nd time and discern where he actually stands. He attempts to present himself as a middleground figure with broadstroke statements in support of the left that only have effect on his image. In the actual debate with specific examples, however, he consistently attacks gun control. That's the side he wants weakened.
This works in reverse in his comments about Lapierre and the NRA. He says Lapierre is "goofy" (vague and meaningless), but that he's right about guns (then he states specific examples against gun control).

This shallow image management of "I'm completely for/against _______, but..." actually works on Bill. I assume because he's keeping his mind on moderating the discussion and keeping it palatable for viewing.

FuriousxGeorge
Aug 8, 2007

We've been the best team all year.

They're just finding out.
There was a lot of talking over heads on the gun stuff, but it came down to Booker didn't have a defense for the AWB but didn't want to admit it. They agreed on everything else. The actual Democratic plan right now probably already knows it won't pass though so they just want to push the sensibleness of the reasonable stuff they will pass as compromise.

gary oldmans diary
Sep 26, 2005

FuriousxGeorge posted:

There was a lot of talking over heads on the gun stuff, but it came down to Booker didn't have a defense for the AWB but didn't want to admit it.
I (obviously) wouldn't say they agreed on everything else, but the only defense called for AWB by Booker when Harris is doing his big spiel about how ineffective/pointless it would be is that every life saved is important... which Booker stated.

az
Dec 2, 2005

FuriousxGeorge posted:

There was a lot of talking over heads on the gun stuff, but it came down to Booker didn't have a defense for the AWB but didn't want to admit it. They agreed on everything else. The actual Democratic plan right now probably already knows it won't pass though so they just want to push the sensibleness of the reasonable stuff they will pass as compromise.

I think he was trying to talk about it (DATA) but Maher shushed him a few times and changed the subject. What I think he wanted to talk about is how some police data shows that the AWB worked in pulling those guns off the street by large margins. Unless you mean something else.

FuriousxGeorge
Aug 8, 2007

We've been the best team all year.

They're just finding out.
Well he kept going back to handguns being what killed people in places like Newark, which they agreed on, so the question is why bother pulling the assault weapons off the street if they are not common in crime and can easily be substituted with handguns for mass shootings. He could not identify the problem that the AWB would solve.

gary oldmans diary
Sep 26, 2005
Gun Control is not about coming up with instant full solutions to the problem. It's about incrementally improving things. Slow or fast, it will always be a process that happens in steps meant to slow the tide of new guns into the hands of criminals in the long run.
With the amount of guns already owned in the country, you can only make plans for the long-term. Results won't be immediately evident (except in making guns harder to buy via price increases from people inducing panic, heh).

gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Feb 3, 2013

az
Dec 2, 2005

^^

That too.

FuriousxGeorge posted:

Well he kept going back to handguns being what killed people in places like Newark, which they agreed on, so the question is why bother pulling the assault weapons off the street if they are not common in crime and can easily be substituted with handguns for mass shootings. He could not identify the problem that the AWB would solve.

It could be I missed something but I believe this is the part where Maher kept butting into Booker talking. Booker said it was improtant to save as many people as possible while Harris and Maher flopped around that. Booker says that even saving one life is important wrt something as the AWB, what more is there to say?

FuriousxGeorge
Aug 8, 2007

We've been the best team all year.

They're just finding out.

quote:

Booker says that even saving one life is important wrt something as the AWB, what more is there to say?

That "it could save one life" is a terrible philosophy for lawmaking? I'm in favor of gun control, it's just that this particular gun control is pointless and everybody knows it won't pass. If that was all Booker could say for it, he lost that portion of the debate. I only saw Maher butting in after it was clear Booker didn't have anything and was repeating himself.

I mean, can you explain why you would want to ban legally owned assault rifles if you believe this?

Booker posted:

To me, the data should drive our decision making. So I know, I’m not afraid of people having guns who are law abiding citizens. In the analysis of gun murders and shootings in my city, I could only find one in the entire time I’ve been mayor – and unfortunately there have been hundreds and hundreds – where a person who was involved in a shooting where they had their gun legally, where they legally acquired their gun. The guns that are causing carnage in our cities, my city and our country, every single year are acquired illegally.

He was making good points for the strict regulation of the secondary market in handguns, but not the AWB, but he couldn't bring himself to say that. It was incoherent and I think I agree he is going to be in trouble at the next level in politics if he can't do better on TV.

This is of course the same guy who went on TV as an Obama surrogate and praised Bain Capital during the campign. The dude can't stay on message.

Booker posted:

“It’s nauseating to the American public,” Booker said on NBC's "Meet the Press." “Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright.”

“As far as that stuff, I have to just say from a very personal level I’m not about to sit here and indict private equity,” he added. “To me, it’s just we’re getting to a ridiculous point in America. Especially that I know I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people invest in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital’s record, they’ve done a lot to support businesses [and] to grow businesses. And this, to me, I’m very uncomfortable with.”

(But hey, it's the Republicans so they might give him a joke opponent like Geraldo)

FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Feb 3, 2013

Zogo
Jul 29, 2003

Hogburto posted:

He didn't specify in schools. In his opening arguments, he called it a point for the right that guns are an equalizer. That would only need to be pointed out (and be a point for either side) if a side wanted to take guns out of the equation, as he's pretending.

True, he didn't explicitly say all of that, but I thought he was talking about and referring to situations where people would find themselves in "gun-free zones." There are many parts of the country where you can't carry a gun legally AKA "taking guns out of the equation." I read the article on his site earlier today and he mentions this aspect. This is the problem when you have a politician debating a philosopher and they're being moderated by a comedian on a strict time limit. There's a lot of room for interpretation as to who said what and what they meant.

Hogburto posted:

His comments against the NRA and in support of gun control only came as reaction to what Booker said as a vague, total agreement as though he wanted to appear neutral to all parties. Every specific example prior to things getting heated he criticized gun control measures.

Yes, but I don't see why it's being dismissed or devalued only because he clarified his position. He basically equated adherence to the second amendment as being a "religious belief." That's pretty insulting to right-wing conservative types. I really don't see how that's being a fence rider. Do you think he's lying about something?

Hogburto posted:

No, I don't believe Obama's plans are an instant successful and perfect solution to the gun problem. But there are no all-at-once solutions as insisted on by people like Harris who criticize them for their lack of huge effect -absolutely pointless criticism that only self-servingly makes you look critical of weak gun control to the left and critical of any gun control to the right.

I do agree that solving the "gun problem" is a major conundrum for any politician not trying to offend a large portion of the country at any given time. However, I don't think the criticism was pointless. For a few weeks I've seen MSNBC and Fox News be misleading and prattle on as if Obama just shutdown gun manufacturing in the US. There's a lot of deluded people out there that have been given false hope. A prime example of this peculiar duality would be those buyback events where they collect a few hundred typically older weapons in exchange for gas cards, tickets to some event or some other kind of barter. Now there's been lives saved from doing that but in the grand scheme of things comparing a few thousand guns reclaimed to the 4+ million that will be manufactured/sold in the US this year. Wouldn't some be falsely placated by that?

Some countries have had compulsory buyback programs and that would probably be a stronger solution.

gary oldmans diary
Sep 26, 2005

Zogo posted:

True, he didn't explicitly say all of that, but I thought he was talking about and referring to situations where people would find themselves in "gun-free zones." There are many parts of the country where you can't carry a gun legally AKA "taking guns out of the equation." I read the article on his site earlier today and he mentions this aspect. This is the problem when you have a politician debating a philosopher and they're being moderated by a comedian on a strict time limit. There's a lot of room for interpretation as to who said what and what they meant.
Fortunately, those were his opening statements in the show free from more complicated contexts of back and forth conversation. There is no need for us to imagine he said anything other than what he said.

Zogo posted:

Yes, but I don't see why it's being dismissed or devalued only because he clarified his position. He basically equated adherence to the second amendment as being a "religious belief." That's pretty insulting to right-wing conservative types. I really don't see how that's being a fence rider. Do you think he's lying about something?
In other words, he made a very general statement against the right -affecting his image as a left/middle/right figure. This is deceptive. His specific arguments about political issues side entirely against gun control. Everything he says can be rephrased in the form of "I'm completely for gun control, but... (here's where he states reasons he thinks could convince someone that gun control is a terrible idea)"
What he actually argues for and how he wants to be perceived are handled separately by him. His constant double talk is evidence enough of him lying about what he believes.

Zogo posted:

I do agree that solving the "gun problem" is a major conundrum for any politician not trying to offend a large portion of the country at any given time. However, I don't think the criticism was pointless. For a few weeks I've seen MSNBC and Fox News be misleading and prattle on as if Obama just shutdown gun manufacturing in the US. There's a lot of deluded people out there that have been given false hope. A prime example of this peculiar duality would be those buyback events where they collect a few hundred typically older weapons in exchange for gas cards, tickets to some event or some other kind of barter. Now there's been lives saved from doing that but in the grand scheme of things comparing a few thousand guns reclaimed to the 4+ million that will be manufactured/sold in the US this year. Wouldn't some be falsely placated by that?

Some countries have had compulsory buyback programs and that would probably be a stronger solution.
It is not a matter of placating those who want the strongest gun control all at once. Gun control is an iterative process and in this political climate that has so long been against it it might make more sense to take measures with a less noticeable effect so the rhetoric that all gun control is tantamount to tyranny will be weakened by looking ridiculous (to its proponents; everyone else already knows, of course).
A smaller step toward gun control that is later found to be acceptable may be more effective toward gun control later than a measure that will only incur huge blowback to the cause.

Alec Bald Snatch
Sep 12, 2012

by exmarx

FuriousxGeorge posted:


This is of course the same guy who went on TV as an Obama surrogate and praised Bain Capital during the campign. The dude can't stay on message.


He's a politician in northern New Jersey with designs on going federal; he has to kiss the FIRE sector's rear end.

Zogo
Jul 29, 2003

Hogburto posted:

Fortunately, those were his opening statements in the show free from more complicated contexts of back and forth conversation. There is no need for us to imagine he said anything other than what he said.

I didn't think I was imagining his viewpoint in that regard (it was taken from the article on his site). He's not saying the left wants to remove all 300+ million guns from the country but that many on the left have enacted laws that've made it illegal to have them in certain designated areas. So in certain settings they're "out of the equation" and not allowed to be the "equalizer."

Hogburto posted:

His specific arguments about political issues side entirely against gun control.

He said he believed that gun owners should be licensed like pilots are licensed though. If something like that was enacted that would be a much more restrictive and rigorous process to go through. Isn't that an extremely left position?

Hogburto posted:

It is not a matter of placating those who want the strongest gun control all at once.

True, but what percentage of US citizens fall under "the strongest gun control" bloc? Is that gun confiscation for non-police/military or even further than that?

Hogburto posted:

Gun control is an iterative process and in this political climate that has so long been against it it might make more sense to take measures with a less noticeable effect so the rhetoric that all gun control is tantamount to tyranny will be weakened by looking ridiculous (to its proponents; everyone else already knows, of course).

Let's say all of these plans go through. What is the next iteration after that? Booker was citing some kind of stat but I couldn't find exactly what he was referring to.

Zogo fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Feb 4, 2013

gary oldmans diary
Sep 26, 2005

Zogo posted:

So in certain settings they're "out of the equation" and not allowed to be the "equalizer."
Maybe you should watch the discussion again, because he didn't come out saying "in certain places as I list in this article", he said what he said. Can you discuss the matter on those terms or not?
And guns don't simply fulfill the role of "equalizer." That would be some high one-sided praise for them indeed.

Zogo posted:

He said he believed that gun owners should be licensed like pilots are licensed though. If something like that was enacted that would be a much more restrictive and rigorous process to go through. Isn't that an extremely left position?
And that is not a reality of today. All things that are current avenues of gun control being discussed as possible steps we could take right now he attacked.
What do you not get about him debating one way and managing his image another way? You seem to not comprehend that, because you raise a point that is a clear example of it and somehow can't recognize it.

I read that blog post you linked. That dude is decidedly against gun control and does the same stuff in print that I point out from his live discussion. Scroll to the blue block of text and read his comments above and below it -the dismissive, condescending, and offended language he uses in response to a modern gun control editorial without actually addressing its content, followed by praise of the article's criticism in the comment section that he attributes directly to the NRA. He attempts to dress it up, but the message he's trying influence people with (separate from the messages he uses to influence how people perceive him personally) is reactionary.

Zogo posted:

True, but what percentage of US citizens fall under "the strongest gun control" bloc? Is that gun confiscation for non-police/military or even further than that?
There is no "but" there. Follow the conversation, please. You say there are stronger gun control plans, I say that's the point in effective policy change isn't to attempt the strongest gun control you can imagine, you ask me unrelated questions about what percent want that and what would it be? That tangent is nothing but inane.

Zogo posted:

Let's say all of these plans go through. What is the next iteration after that? Booker was citing some kind of stat but I couldn't find exactly what he was referring to.
You're asking what the next step in gun control to come out of Washington will/should be like it's a question you really expect someone to be able to answer.

Anyway, if you're taken in by this guy, fine. I think you should be able to recognize his methods when they're pointed out, but if you can't, whatever. I don't want to keep discussing it with you because there's nothing left to say.

gary oldmans diary fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Feb 4, 2013

Zogo
Jul 29, 2003

Hogburto posted:

There is no "but" there. Follow the conversation, please. You say there are stronger gun control plans, I say that's the point in effective policy change isn't to attempt the strongest gun control you can imagine, you ask me unrelated questions about what percent want that and what would it be? That tangent is nothing but inane.

You used the phrase "strongest gun control" and I just wanted you to clarify what level you were talking about. I don't know what level of gun control was being envisioned as appropriate or what the endgame was supposed to be.

Hogburto posted:

You're asking what the next step in gun control to come out of Washington will/should be like it's a question you really expect someone to be able to answer.

I thought I'd give it a shot. If you don't have any idea, that's fine.

Hogburto posted:

Maybe you should watch the discussion again, because he didn't come out saying "in certain places as I list in this article", he said what he said. Can you discuss the matter on those terms or not?

I'm merely clarifying his position because you seemed to think he meant something else. Maher mentioned the article(s) on the show so I didn't think he was being evasive about his true thoughts.

I did end up watching it again and Booker's line of thought became more confusing this time around. He seems to be saying that the vast majority of gun crime in his area (Newark) is done by those with illegal guns (not those transferred legally or ones disallowed in the city limits)? That doesn't seem hard to believe. Then he uses that point to support the full background check (which most do agree with in the country but the line of thought becomes murky here) and the AWB (less support but still probably around half the country are behind that).

Harris/Maher/Kucinich then go on to object and question the effectiveness and purpose of those two proposals. My understanding seems to be that they're saying even with those two proposals fully realized and legislated that you're still left with 300+ million guns (still healthily growing) in the country and people having extreme ease of access for using them to commit crimes, murders, suicides.

Hogburto posted:

And that is not a reality of today. All things that are current avenues of gun control being discussed as possible steps we could take right now he attacked. What do you not get about him debating one way and managing his image another way? You seem to not comprehend that, because you raise a point that is a clear example of it and somehow can't recognize it.

He criticized it but I don't know if I'd say he "attacked" it. That makes it sound like he was against the background check/AWB. I think he's taking an extremely pragmatic position on this issue and you see it as him being a liar/shill on it. As far as image management, I'd imagine all those guys on TV are holding back some things and beliefs (especially politicians).

Hogburto posted:

I read that blog post you linked. That dude is decidedly against gun control and does the same stuff in print that I point out from his live discussion. Scroll to the blue block of text and read his comments above and below it -the dismissive, condescending, and offended language he uses in response to a modern gun control editorial without actually addressing its content

What was condescending in the article? I read that stuff and it just seemed like he was stating stark, sobering and disturbing facts. Yes, you're right I wouldn't label him into a box as being a typical "left/liberal/anti-gun democrat", he's talking way too abstractly about this subject to fit within any neat and tidy "right vs. left" duopoly.

gary oldmans diary
Sep 26, 2005

Zogo posted:

What was condescending in the article? I read that stuff and it just seemed like he was stating stark, sobering and disturbing facts. Yes, you're right I wouldn't label him into a box as being a typical "left/liberal/anti-gun democrat", he's talking way too abstractly about this subject to fit within any neat and tidy "right vs. left" duopoly.
I disagree with everything you wrote in this paragraph point by point and where he was condescending (among the other adjectives) -I already referred to the specific selection so there shouldn't be any confusion there. He pretends to be a liberal on this issue in the sense of a liberal being someone who thinks liberal ideas are just wonderful, except they won't work (or won't work now or here or just aren't right) so let's not do them... otherwise known as not actually liberal on this issue. At all.
Anyway, anything I've got left to say on the matter would either be repeating myself or otherwise covering old ground, so I feel like this is "until next time" (Friday).

adebisi lives
Nov 11, 2009
Did anyone else notice when Harris said AR-15's were great for home defense because the bullets were less likely to penetrate walls?

Grand Fromage
Jan 30, 2006

L-l-look at you bar-bartender, a-a pa-pathetic creature of meat and bone, un-underestimating my l-l-liver's ability to metab-meTABolize t-toxins. How can you p-poison a perfect, immortal alcohOLIC?


adebisi lives posted:

Did anyone else notice when Harris said AR-15's were great for home defense because the bullets were less likely to penetrate walls?

That actually isn't bullshit, an AR-15 bullet is very light and tumbles in such a way that it won't penetrate well. Something like a .45 pistol has a much better chance of going through walls.

Not saying this is a good reason to have an AR-15 around the house but it's not bullshit.

adebisi lives
Nov 11, 2009

Grand Fromage posted:

That actually isn't bullshit, an AR-15 bullet is very light and tumbles in such a way that it won't penetrate well. Something like a .45 pistol has a much better chance of going through walls.

Not saying this is a good reason to have an AR-15 around the house but it's not bullshit.

This seems to support what I understood of AR-15 ballistics:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14.htm

Tumbling or not, an AR-15 round is typically going to be going at a high enough velocity to tear through walls far more than a .45 which is probably going a third of the speed or less. Either way, saying an AR-15 is safer than most other home defense guns with regards to wall penetration would still seem inaccurate. If some TFR guru wants to cite something more scientific disputing this I would be interested to read more.

az
Dec 2, 2005

Grand Fromage posted:

That actually isn't bullshit, an AR-15 bullet is very light and tumbles in such a way that it won't penetrate well. Something like a .45 pistol has a much better chance of going through walls.

Not saying this is a good reason to have an AR-15 around the house but it's not bullshit.

No, you're talking about soft point of hollow point bullets. Regular 5.56/.223 FMJ (full metal jacket) will go much further than bog standard .45 and with much less derivation to the sides.

Tambreet
Nov 28, 2006

Ninja Platypus
Muldoon
Tonight's discussion on how great the drone strikes are is difficult to watch. At least there are a couple smart guys on the panel.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Zogo
Jul 29, 2003

Undeclared Eggplant posted:

Tonight's discussion on how great the drone strikes are is difficult to watch. At least there are a couple smart guys on the panel.

Yea, it's bizarre how everyone is trying to justify targeted killings. And then Maher was citing and invoking "dirty bombs" and nukes as the reason to use these attacks. I thought most had recognized "dirty bombs" as being a scare tactic. If this was Bush's fourth term I have a feeling people would be eviscerating and heavily criticizing this kind of stance. Although not even Bush was using this many drones.

I have a feeling it's only a matter of time before these things will be being used domestically too.

The panel was complaining about the lackluster infrastructure in the country and the embarrassing incompetence to let the power go out during the biggest TV event of the year. Well, maybe we could use some of that drone $$$.


How many more people are going to have to be exterminated overseas before the US gov't is satisfied and thinks the work is finished?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply