LA Grant

What I've seen is most of PPP barely reads, period, and what they do read is plainly wrong. I don't intend to stay, so don't worry too much; you'll soon be able to return to your protective bubble, your safe space.

Maybe. It is also necessary. Here's a nice summary for why stupidity needs to be confronted more. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-problem-isnt-just-trump-its-our-ignorant-electorate?via=desktop&source=Reddit "The greatest threat to tyranny is an educated populace" — Franklin "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people" — Jefferson

As always, thank you for ably personifying ignorance, Sir Thomas.

You're lucky that, unlike other posters, I'm willing to repeat things for your benefit. The suggestions have been laid out in this thread multiple times — sarcastically in the first post, and more earnestly several times thereafter. So, if you want data to back up what I'm about to tell you, they are available in many places on the Internet, including within this very thread. I'm giving you just one moment, for your individual benefit, and putting up with the lazy defensive posturing because of the very slim chance that your mind is open, even just a crack, to hear solutions, as you say. OK? There is an easy fix, and it's Universal Background Checks for all firearms sales in the United States. This would be a process in which a non-military/law enforcement citizen can still easily buy a gun for defense/hunting, while weeding out the mentally ill. This process would work in a similar manner to the DMV — classes, annual registration, and competency tests. For the "good guys" this is the same inconvenience we all face to maintain a driver's license; a mild one. For the Parkland shooter, and other mass shooters before him, this simple fix would have prevented a tragedy where the criminal had tons of warning signs. UBC provides a strong last defense when other preventive measures fail. For the Parkland shooter, he had tons of red flags — but because he didn't have a criminal record & hadn't been institutionalized, in the eyes of the law, he was still fit to own a gun. That. Does. Not. Make. Sense. The laws should make sense. Right? Again — Universal Background Checks is not banning xyz gun. Specific bans are half-measures. Look at Chicago, for instance. The handgun ban has not prevented criminals from simply driving a few hours to Indiana to easily buy whatever they need. This is why the easy fix, the obvious fix, is a national UBC system for all firearm sales — stores, gun shows, craigslist person-to-person, whatever. Every other comparably developed nation has a similar process in place, and they do not have NEARLY the rate of mass shootings that the US endures. The argument that we can't pass stronger restrictions because "2A can not be infringed" is illogical for several reasons. For one, it's already infringed. You can't own ANY arm. You can't easily buy a grenade launcher (though it is actually legal to do so in some places, there are just heavy restrictions). For another, we can agree that restrictions on Amendments are necessary even without passing additional Amendments. There are a host of restrictions on 1A that we all agree are necessary — for libel, slander, and child pornography. These clarifications on what is & isn't "free speech" still provide us all with our basic inalienable freedoms, while also guarding against those who would exploit those freedoms for destruction. Therefore, if it is insisted that all Amendments must be followed to the letter of the law, then we are also making the lives of pedophiles easier. None of us want that, and though technically a restriction on free speech, it doesn't affect most of us, because we were never going to use free speech that way. Similarly, restricting firearms with regulations would not affect most legal gun owners (aside from DMV-like inconveniences), because most legal gun owners don't have a bunch of warning signs that they're going to be mass shooters. For those that do have those warning signs, they can't get a gun. If the warning signs are unfounded, the individual can have a process to appeal. The idea that any regulations = taking away your guns is nonsense. That's not the suggestion. That is a fear-based tactic used by the NRA to keep the discussion emotional rather than rational, as it is in their best interest to keep gun access completely unregulated, because that means more guns are sold. Right? Most legal gun owners agree that UBC would be helpful and necessary. The reason this easy simple fix hasn't been done already is because of, specifically, the NRA, which is part of the broader problem of money in politics and corporate lobbying. Lastly, the idea that citizens owning weapons keeps us free is also nonsense. Lawful Gun Owners defend no freedoms for others, only themselves. They defend the right to hunt and to use a gun for self-defense. That has no bearing on anyone else's free speech, or anything else. If you want to challenge this claim, please provide any example of a time where someone's freedom was in danger and was protected by an ordinary citizen with a gun. It doesn't exist. The best justifications Lawful Gun Owners have is "what if I need to shoot a burglar who wants to rape my family." You'll find plenty of examples of guns used for self-defense, but that is not the same as defending the rights of others. You could perhaps argue that the military defends freedom using guns. Sure. But again. Nobody's saying take away guns from the military. We're saying, keep them away from suicidal psychos who have decided life is not worth the pain and want to make a nihilistic point in a dramatic fashion. These people almost always have warning signs. There you go. Thanks for reading.

Hmm. Maybe! Can't claim to know Rhino's list of beliefs on all issues, so I'll take you at your word that he's different on other issues. In this case, Rhino is burrowing deep into a crazy conservative conspiracy with the fervent belief of a North Korean. On guns, he seems to be more interested in believing the NRA than the Parkland kids, and the Federalist over the NY Times. I just call it like I see it. Douche? Sure. Misguided? Well, my still being here would support this. Misinformed? In the broadest sense, definitely, as we are currently living in a world full of bad information. Misinformed relative to this board? No. Frustrated? Yeah. Seems like a sane response to the times but that's me. Malcontent? I'll take it. Delusions of adequacy? A fair description of the overall human experience! I like it. Flaming, trolling, "sniping retards from the balcony" — whatever you want to call it, I'm using the exact same standard PPP tactics, just not on the usual targets for the usual reasons.

Absurd. The rephrased question was as simple and innocent as yours... and just as pointed. PPP seems to be full of guys who think asking rhetorical questions prove their point. They don't. It's why I asked a rhetorical question in return. Of course, I also asked several other questions that went completely ignored. Repeatedly, I asked you to clarify the convictions you claim to hold so courageously. Repeatedly, they were ignored. Why is it wrong to be skeptical of the Federalist article? Why do you keep insisting that it is not implying what is is clearly implying, an implication that all of the article's commenters made explicit? Why do you keep dodging this line of questioning, particularly when just the other day you were jawing on about how it was every American's responsibility to question their media? It'd be very fair to question the courage of those convictions, but I guess I can't do that since you said it first, huh? It really is some kind of phenomenon, this thing of making an accusation that is a confused confession. This is the exact advice that you need to be taking, you nutso conspiracy theorist. It's like how Roy More and all of the other weirdo hardcore anti-gay Republicans always turn out to be weird pedophiles or something f***ed up. Trump does it constantly, at least one other person on PPP tried it with me recently, and now this from you. Seriously, what is up with that? Is it like how the brain processes information when it's completely lacking in self-awareness, or what? Oof. Yeah. I dunno. Maybe in the same room. For you, I'm betting you fancy yourself as an "independent," right? Others here I'm sure insist they're not really conservative, more "libertarian." Just a bunch of independents & libertarians who all just so happen to have a totally healthy passion for destructive conservative propaganda. (Gah, sorry!! I don't want to keep bruising any egos.) I meant... a totally healthy passion for journalism with deep integrity. Yeah, that's the ticket. Great journalistic sources like The Federalist... y'know, that widely respected blog, the one started in 2013 by the idiot who got fired by The Washington Post after only 3 days for multiple accusations of plagiarism. That's what the smart guys are reading.

That's quite a few falsehoods in just four sentences. Not bad. Ever think about running for office? On PPP, the madness grows like mildew. It's why your head isn't working right: you've been breathing toxic fumes. This thread is like if someone on TSW started raving how Rob Ryan is actually a genius who let himself coordinate the worst defenses in the NFL for years, just so he could get hired to the Bills, knowing he'd get his brother fired, but it was all part of the plan, a secret war between the scouts, and all will be revealed in the 2018 draft when the Buffalo Bills use both first round picks on Doug Whaley and Rex Ryan for sweet revenge.

I think the only thing holding water is your brain. The bolded part is correct, anyway, you silly, simple fool. An American president committing treason is the biggest scandal in US history, yeah. All you are doing is desperately grasping to the hope that you weren't wrong about the man. Probably because if you admit you were wrong about that, then you might have to wonder about what else you have been wrong about, and ... well, that just won't do, will it? Easier to just assume everyone else is wrong. That's probably it. I guess I'd like to know this — if Trump is secretly super-competent, capable of an Art of War feint, some high-level game of misdirection, why have we never seen that type of behavior from him in his previous 70 years of life on earth? Hmm! Maybe this all goes back even further... Also, why would he also be constantly spilling the beans on the big surprise reveal? Especially now, when the heat is on him, when it will look most like desperate nonsense? If he were secretly super competent, wouldn't it make more sense to just wait and then drop it all at once? Especially for a plan that's been years in the making? Seems like a strange strategy but I guess that's just to me, the dumb guy who can't see the four-dimensional chess game he's actually playing. Getting spanked daily by Brennan is all part of the plan, too? Just more "prepping the battlefield" for when everything reverses and Brennan is also taken down? Yeah it's all part of the plan, I'm sure. Only folks like yourself and this bot/person/bot can see the truuuuuuuth. Sh*t, at this point, I'm feeling bad about laughing at you. This is getting to be genuinely sad. You're already giving your theory enough "outs" so that you can still believe it even after its fully confirmed you've been played like a fiddle since day one. It's the sunk-cost fallacy. You've spent so much time believing in this so hard, you'll just keep going in this direction, in spite of everything, rather than simply admit to yourself you have been suckered. Simple... but not easy. The depths of your delusions are sincerely depressing, but don't worry, I know how to deal with difficult feelings — I learned from Rhino! I'm going to start believing there is a Wizard of Oz capable of giving Rhino the self-awareness he so desperately lacks. Think about it. Why hasn't Mueller visited Kansas during the investigation? Because that's where the real investigation is. You guys are gonna flip when the Oz memo drops!

Whatever you say, bud ??? hahahahahhaa you are looney tunes.

Hahaha. That would be convenient for you, eh? I don't think you know your position on the subject anymore. Are you able to articulate it? What's your current version now that the "the election was rigged against Trump" horse has been thoroughly shot down? How are you justifying the McCabe developments to fit? But let's see... I know you're still hoping for the MOAB prophecy to be realized, and that's the core of it — that the Mueller investigation is not to be trusted. (Pretty similar to your position on the Parkland kids; they're probably liars!) I enjoyed your confidence that it would come in the State of the Union. Then that it could be in the Nunes memo. Then that the Nunes memo mattered. Then, possibly currently, that maybe it will still come from Horwitz. Now I suppose you're hoping it'll come right around the time Mueller wraps up his investigation and Trump gets really desperate. You have certainly helped, what's that phrase you like, "prepare the battlefield" for Trump to claim "Fake News" if/when the last indictments drop. You are, if nothing else, a good puppet. Good job with that, freedom fighter. I will tell you that my favorite of your novellas was the one where you got really emotional imagining the anonymous black hats fighting a secret war to rig the election against Trump. That one was pretty good. I liked how you were brought to tears by your own Tom Clancy fan fiction. Pretty funny. Anyway, here's a pretty good summary of your position:

Haha. We could also have a discussion whenever you're ready to answer any of the multitude of questions I asked you. But if the coward's way works for you.... you do you.

Ha, okay. Sure. Apologies for not using the politically correct "people first" language on this one. You're not a right winger. You, DC Tom, LABillzFan, Tasker... you're all independents ??who just so happen to be enthusiasts of right-wing propaganda.

Oh I've read quite a bit. I've also been following this story for some time, including the alternate reality version of the story the right has been drooling over for months, from the Q-anon theories to the Sessions speculation and all the rest. Frankly it's the best horror-comedy I've seen since "Get Out" and should've at least been nominated last night. The various true-believers have spent 49 pages doubling-down on fantasy, putting the rope around your collective necks of credibility. Don't mind me for borrowing the stool to have a laugh as it shakes out to be the misrepresentation & outright lies it always appeared to be. Like the Nunes memo. Like Benghazi. Like Obama's birth certificate. Like every hambone rightwing conspiracy theory that comes out of the woodwork anytime the right is under siege. There should be a thread where y'all make formal bets on this broken pony. If it turns out you're right, I will happily admit to being wrong & pay you for your hard work. If it turns out y'all are as wrong as it appears, there ought to be a PPP version of the Nuremberg Trials ? Fun as it would be to see bogusness actually punished for once, it wouldn't work for one simple reason — ain't nothing rarer in the world than a conservative admitting they were wrong.

I do not. Do both sides of the aisle raise the same amount of money? Come on, man. Think it through. Can you think of any industry that makes a lot of money that may potentially lose money when mass shooting tragedies strike? Any industry at all that might be incentivized to "further the divide to keep money rolling in"? Can you think of any industry that might fit that description?? btw — Take a look at the comments on the Federalist article. It would appear that most of the readers of the article are happily inviting the comparison. Exactly like I said — this was the article's intent. It gives you all of the pieces to come to the "don't trust the kids" conclusion but knows enough to avoid outright calling them actors. You claim to be skeptical of media but thus far haven't demonstrated any skepticism on this one. Why not?

Rhino, the only problem with your conclusion is that it makes very little sense. Who do you think stands to lose money when gun tragedies strike? Who do you think doesn't really care about solving the problem? Who do you think is furthering the divide to keep money rolling in? And how in the world would you conclude the answers to those questions is "George Clooney and Oprah Winfrey"?? Or even Debbie Wasserman Schultz?? You occasionally seem rational but you are really, really turned around backwards on this. The problems & solutions here are not complicated; what is complicated is the path to solutions. Hope you see it. https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/970402289742618624

Because you know that you hardly, if ever, support your own statements? Because you're somewhat aware that you constantly hiding behind excuses and misdirections? I suppose that might be why. Also — your weird piss fetish aside (why do all conservatives hav-- nevermind), me dropping in to call you names for being disingenuous doesn't indicate anger, darlin'. Just making sure you get a little bit of the same medicine you dole out regularly. Y'know, fair and balanced. Looking forward to those 10 examples of you supporting your statements in a debate. Thanks!

No reason to ever doubt the NRA. They're just trying to protect their free dumbs.

If you say so, Sir Thomas! We should take your word for it — that article is definitely not at all similar to accusing the kids of being crisis actors. It's merely accusing the kids of acting as crisis exploiters, that's all! Totally different. I see now that Rhino is insane but what's your excuse, besides the obvious? Is English your second language? If so, I promise to take it easier on you for struggling with definitions.

Guys!!!! Did you see the new development???? It turns out Obama's birth certificate was behind all of this!! Hillary used her witch magic to give it sentience. It's all making sense now!! hahahahahahaha FORTY NINE pages of you clowns playing pretend in fantasyland ahahahahahahahahaha

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ahhhh. Ha. There is A LOT of comedy in this thread. It is... spectacular. I have to give Trump some credit. This whole Nunes/Horwitz/McCabe/Comey/Deep State conspiracy is proof that he can literally sell a sh*t-sandwich to his base and they will eat it up and ask for more. Then again, why only give Trump the credit? That same base is regularly swindled by all sorts of nihilistic merchants. Don't mind me. Keep heading down this road, Rhino!! Don't worry if it looks like you're heading off a cliff, that's what they want you to think — it's actually an invisible bridge that only special you can see! Art of War! Keep going!! lolllll

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/take-two-weeks-truth-emerge-parkland-students-astroturfing/#disqus_thread

Alrighty then. In what way are you living up to your "skeptical about media" principle here?

I don't think you are quite seeing it — I'm saying the Federalist article is aiming for the same objective as the "crisis actor" argument, but for people who are too rational to believe that outright. It is for the sizable demographic of people who want to dismiss the Parkland kids, without going as far to say that they are crisis actors, but just far enough to suggest they're not in control of their voices. It is a conspiracy theory for the more rational right. It is still suggesting that the kids are puppets and have always been puppets— just slightly different kinds of puppets. Again, if the article's objective was to simply examine the "coordinated effort to exploit the tragedy" then why is it so slanted in the implication that the only coordinated efforts are from the left? We know there are even more powerful forces at play working to discredit the Parkland kids, but rather than comparing the coordinated efforts to the gun lobby, he chooses Baked Alaska, in order to imply that the right is out-gunned with coordinated efforts. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader.If the article is about "coordinated efforts to exploit tragedy" in the gun debate, wouldn't any fair analysis include some mention of the NRA? I suppose the reason he doesn't go there is it would bring into question his article to begin with, which under his own parameters, would count as part of a coordinated effort... to discredit and dismiss the Parkland kids. Seems like an example of disingenuous media to me, but maybe I'm being too skeptical.

Ah okay. Well that settles it then.

They're the same category, as you just pointed out. They appear to be different degrees along the same scale, with the same endgame: dismissal via discreditation. I recall your stance from the gun thread. I also recall your stance on media skepticism. Refer to my previous post above where I provide fair skepticism to this particular media's objective and why.