Liberal Protests

[3rdnlng]

39 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

What the !@#$ does he have against pigs and dogs?

 

Bacon is the nectar of the Gods.

 

Don't forget, if you disagree with him you support NAMBLA. The child-molesty one, not the Marlon Brando one.

 

There's a difference?

http://people.com/movies/last-tango-paris-butter-rape-scene-not-consensual/

 

 

[LA Grant]

4 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

The Hogg kid threw himself into the political spotlight as a far left activist and has been featured on multiple networks where he received simply praise and no real push back against his position on guns.  I don't care if he's still barely a minor.  Nearly all criticism from the other side (commentators, pundits, journalists) are fair regardless of how stupid the criticism is.  Ingraham's tweet was ill advised (but relatively minor in the twitter political universe) and she apologized.  The drive to push out conservative voices on Fox by calling out their advertisers reinforces should be concerning to anyone on both sides of the aisle who value free speech.

 

Would you kindly provide examples of "fair criticism" to David Hogg from commentators/pundits/journalists? All I've seen has been outright slander, libel and name-calling from conservative pundits.

[boyst]

10 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Would you kindly provide examples of "fair criticism" to David Hogg from commentators/pundits/journalists? All I've seen has been outright slander, libel and name-calling from conservative pundits.

Can you please cite fair criticism?

 

There is a ton of honest criticism.  It's fair as hell.  You're just too dishonest to pay attention. 

 

How can one fairly criticize a retard, anyway?  Think of it like many treat you. Unfairly calling you names.  

 

My God responding to you knowing you're intellectually insufficient to even muster up a worthy response makes me annoyed that I just wasted time. 

[Doc Brown]

16 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Would you kindly provide examples of "fair criticism" to David Hogg from commentators/pundits/journalists? All I've seen has been outright slander, libel and name-calling from conservative pundits.

Let's start by noting you quoted two words that I didn't write in that order and you only bolded half the sentence.  I should have said "is fair game."  My point is that since he's made himself a far left activist on gun control and appeared on multiple networks, it is perfectly okay for the other side to criticize him (fairly or unfairly).  He's now using the excuse that a Fox News host shouldn't attack him for any purpose because he's still a minor and is calling for an ad boycott of her show.  

[LA Grant]

14 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Can you please cite fair criticism?

 

There is a ton of honest criticism.  It's fair as hell.  You're just too dishonest to pay attention. 

 

How can one fairly criticize a retard, anyway?  Think of it like many treat you. Unfairly calling you names.  

 

My God responding to you knowing you're intellectually insufficient to even muster up a worthy response makes me annoyed that I just wasted time. 

 

lol, jesus f***ing christ. You are a model PPP citizen, Boyst. "What's fair criticism?" About the exact opposite of what you've dumped here with the rest of your diarrhetic drivel. 

 

It's like trying to explain calculus to a second-grader and you're stomping your feet about long division. No. That's not accurate. Second-graders have the capacity to learn.

 

2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Let's start by noting you quoted two words that I didn't write in that order and you only bolded half the sentence.  I should have said "is fair game."  My point is that since he's made himself a far left activist on gun control and appeared on multiple networks, it is perfectly okay for the other side to criticize him (fairly or unfairly).  He's now using the excuse that a Fox News host shouldn't attack him for any purpose because he's still a minor and is calling for an ad boycott of her show.  

 

So because David Hogg is in the media, because he's speaking about gun restrictions, because people agree with him, this makes him fair game for slander, libel, and namecalling? 

 

How do you feel about the rumor that Trump molests his daughter? Or Barron is threatening to be a school shooter? Or, because you are participating in social media by posting on this message board, that it'd be fair game to spread rumors that your mom's a prostitute?  Would those outright lies be fair game from your POV?  They're all media figures. 

[Doc Brown]

Just now, LA Grant said:

So because David Hogg is in the media, because he's speaking about gun restrictions, because people agree with him, this makes him fair game for slander, libel, and namecalling? 

 

How do you feel about the rumor that Trump molests his daughter? Or Barron is threatening to be a school shooter? Or, because you are participating in social media by posting on this message board, that it'd be fair game to spread rumors that your mom's a prostitute?  Would those outright lies be fair game from your POV?  They're all media figures. 

I said "nearly all criticism" in my original post and those examples would be going too far. 

 

Ingraham made fun of him because he didn't get into certain colleges despite a decent GPA.  That's a minor attack made in poor taste and she apologized for it.  Every example you just gave is way more extreme.

[LA Grant]

Just now, Doc Brown said:

I said "nearly all criticism" in my original post and those examples would be going too far. 

 

Ingraham made fun of him because he didn't get into certain colleges despite a decent GPA.  That's a minor attack made in poor taste and she apologized for it.  Every example you just gave is way more extreme.

 

Sorry I think I am not being clear — I understand the point about Ingraham. It's tacky of her to do a story about it, but yeah, he did tweet about the rejection letters, so sure. He's also free to say "f*** you" back at her and pressure advertisers to drop her. That's free speech. That's free market. It goes both ways. 

 

I'm more interested in the suggestion that there exists "fair criticism" of Hogg, particularly, many examples of it. We can say Ingraham is fair criticism. It's a distraction tactic, like, whatever he does for college isn't related to anything he's saying about guns, but as a "scoop" on a "celebrity"? It's not libel or slander, so we can have that be the bar for "fair." 

 

What I'm wondering is: do you agree that the majority of criticism of Hogg, on this board & throughout the right, has been unfair? If you think the majority has been fair, what's your reasoning for libel, slander, name-calling being acceptable for public discourse?

[DC Tom]

14 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

So because David Hogg is in the media, because he's speaking about gun restrictions, because people agree with him, this makes him fair game for slander, libel, and namecalling? 

 

How do you feel about the rumor that Trump molests his daughter? Or Barron is threatening to be a school shooter? Or, because you are participating in social media by posting on this message board, that it'd be fair game to spread rumors that your mom's a prostitute?  Would those outright lies be fair game from your POV?  They're all media figures. 

 

He's a public figure.  Fair game.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/25/us/court-8-0-extends-right-to-criticize-those-in-public-eye.html

[Doc Brown]

4 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Sorry I think I am not being clear — I understand the point about Ingraham. It's tacky of her to do a story about it, but yeah, he did tweet about the rejection letters, so sure. He's also free to say "f*** you" back at her and pressure advertisers to drop her. That's free speech. That's free market. It goes both ways. 

 

I'm more interested in the suggestion that there exists "fair criticism" of Hogg, particularly, many examples of it. We can say Ingraham is fair criticism. It's a distraction tactic, like, whatever he does for college isn't related to anything he's saying about guns, but as a "scoop" on a "celebrity"? It's not libel or slander, so we can have that be the bar for "fair." 

 

What I'm wondering is: do you agree that the majority of criticism of Hogg, on this board & throughout the right, has been unfair? If you think the majority has been fair, what's your reasoning for libel, slander, name-calling being acceptable for public discourse?

"Fair criticism" would be he's focusing solely on the gun as the problem.  He doesn't appear to be upset about the outside officer who refused to go into the school to engage the shooter when he heard gun shots.  He brushes off the failures of the local sheriff and FBI despite multiple red flags on Cruz before the shooting.  Some people (like me) see a more realistic solution to prevent more tragedies like this one is an increase in mental health services.  He just seems like a political opportunist to me.

[Koko78]

48 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

How do you feel about the rumor that Trump molests his daughter? Or Barron is threatening to be a school shooter? Or, because you are participating in social media by posting on this message board, that it'd be fair game to spread rumors that your mom's a prostitute?  Would those outright lies be fair game from your POV?  They're all media figures. 

 

Funny how you didn't address the "fair criticism" that you intentionally misrepresented what he actually said, you dishonest douchebag.

[boyst]

47 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

lol, jesus f***ing christ. You are a model PPP citizen, Boyst. "What's fair criticism?" About the exact opposite of what you've dumped here with the rest of your diarrhetic drivel. 

 

It's like trying to explain calculus to a second-grader and you're stomping your feet about long division. No. That's not accurate. Second-graders have the capacity to learn.

 

 

So because David Hogg is in the media, because he's speaking about gun restrictions, because people agree with him, this makes him fair game for slander, libel, and namecalling? 

 

How do you feel about the rumor that Trump molests his daughter? Or Barron is threatening to be a school shooter? Or, because you are participating in social media by posting on this message board, that it'd be fair game to spread rumors that your mom's a prostitute?  Would those outright lies be fair game from your POV?  They're all media figures. 

What's funny is you're stupid as hell.

 

What's funny is you actually believe I am, as well.

 

What's funny is I'm fairly !@#$ing smart and highly intelligent. I suck at popular topics most people here would school me on but when it comes to someone talking about math and such I hardly believe you to be anyone wortthy of discussing intellect.

 

Nonetheless, deflect from the question. It's your MO. Which is modus operandi. That's Greek for meaning "main idea", if you're too stupid to know anything...

51 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

lol, jesus f***ing christ. You are a model PPP citizen, Boyst. "What's fair criticism?" About the exact opposite of what you've dumped here with the rest of your diarrhetic drivel. 

 

It's like trying to explain calculus to a second-grader and you're stomping your feet about long division. No. That's not accurate. Second-graders have the capacity to learn.

 

 

So because David Hogg is in the media, because he's speaking about gun restrictions, because people agree with him, this makes him fair game for slander, libel, and namecalling? 

 

How do you feel about the rumor that Trump molests his daughter? Or Barron is threatening to be a school shooter? Or, because you are participating in social media by posting on this message board, that it'd be fair game to spread rumors that your mom's a prostitute?  Would those outright lies be fair game from your POV?  They're all media figures. 

Wanna start with me big boy?  Start rumors about me.  **** the facts are worse anyway.

 

Rumors you perpetuate because you grasp at reasons to hate is rather disgusting. You choose to surround yourself with negativity. That's ugly, brah.  Tibs, busey, others are willfully retarded, like Wendy or Gary the conquerer. They don't know better. Others like cugalwhatever and whatever reddog is these days are honest in their purity and beliefs and good people despite having a great frustration and possibly hatred of trump. Others like you are just a bitter, sad sack of **** that exists in humanity.  I've read your take enough, and while I no way doubt you might be decent and well off in life I perpetuate you to be a very unhappy and shallow man who has lost a great deal of opportunity by his own lack of volition. It must suck to be you.

[Doc Brown]

9 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Funny how you didn't address the "fair criticism" that you intentionally misrepresented what he actually said, you dishonest douchebag.

Yeah.  Looking back at his posts he seems to purposely use straw man arguments.  I just thought he had a reading comprehension problem.

[LA Grant]

8 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

"Fair criticism" would be he's focusing solely on the gun as the problem.  He doesn't appear to be upset about the outside officer who refused to go into the school to engage the shooter when he heard gun shots.  He brushes off the failures of the local sheriff and FBI despite multiple red flags on Cruz before the shooting.  Some people (like me) see a more realistic solution to prevent more tragedies like this one is an increase in mental health services.  He just seems like a political opportunist to me.

 

Two-part response. The shorter of the two is — You were mentioning fair criticism coming from the media. Wondering if the majority of critical media on Hogg has been fair or unfair? 

 

The longer one: Hogg is not running for office. He is a kid with an opinion. People are listening to his opinion because he survived a mass shooting at his school where his friends and classmates were murdered by a clearly mentally ill 18-year-old legally bought his weapon, an AR-15, without hassle. 

 

His opinion is that purchase should not have been possible. I agree with him. The majority of Americans, including lawful gun owners, support tighter restrictions, particularly universal background checks implemented nationally. Local restrictions are half-measures; a high percentage of gun violence in Chicago come from weapons purchased legally in Indiana. 

 

Hogg isn't as focused on the failures of the local sheriff/FBI because that is not the core issue — because Parkland isn't unique. There are an unacceptable rate of mass shootings & school shootings, particularly since the 2008 Heller decision. Solving this is going to require changing something; despite many attempts, ignoring it hasn't worked.

 

Improving mental health services would be wonderful, but how would this not necessitate higher taxes? The left is obviously onboard with better nationalized healthcare,  and now the right controls the entire government. So what's the hold up here? 

 

Furthermore, I don't understand this overall insistence, only from the right, that Hogg must hold opinions on every subject (tangential but relevant: on a separate board, someone was arguing that Hogg had a filthy mouth and why isn't he focused on the unborn fetuses murdered every year? "because he wasn't the victim of a mass abortion, genius") — while at the same time, criticize him for being too public.

 

The right has been floating various contradictory ideas — is he a liar? is he a puppet? is he an actor? is he an opportunist? — with the unifying thread being it's aimed to discredit. Even if it means going to slander, libel, name-calling. A photoshopped meme of Emma Gonzalez tearing up the Constitution makes the rounds because there are plenty among the right who will share fake crap without a second thought if it aligns with their perception.

 

All the while, the right appears to be absolutely unwilling to even consider the Parkland kids at face value: why can't Hogg simply be an angry teenager with an interest in debate/journalism/politics? Maybe he's got some mild Asperger's, but he's not some major mystery — I remember kids in HS being like Hogg. Their dads weren't in the FBI but some were in law enforcement and military background. That tends to make the kids interested in politics/history, because dad is. It really is not hard to understand Hogg or the Parkland kids if you just put yourself in their shoes and ask what you might do, if you were 16 or 17, and this happened in your school? 

 

Keeping in mind that it is in Florida, where a lot of the worst gun violence has occurred: Orlando was last year, Trayvon Martin a few years ago... and too many others. So, this is both shocking and not surprising. Keeping in mind that teenagers in 2018 are far more comfortable on camera than older generations can fully comprehend, I think, and the older one is, the more difficult it might be to relate to the level of intuitiveness kids have with media and publicness. 

 

tl;dr There are far more examples of unfair criticism of Hogg than fair criticism — on this board, and in right-leaning media. There appears to be almost no effort, on this board and in right-leaning media, to consider what Hogg & the Parkland kids & the Chicago kids & March For Our Lives are saying in good faith.

 

I'm wondering if you agree/disagree with that statement?

[boyst]

6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Yeah.  Looking back at his posts he seems to purposely use straw man arguments.  I just thought he had a reading comprehension problem.

I'd diagnose him as delusional, frustrated/contemptuous and essentially suffering from a great lack of inferriority

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

Two-part response. The shorter of the two is — You were mentioning fair criticism coming from the media. Wondering if the majority of critical media on Hogg has been fair or unfair? 

 

The longer one: Hogg is not running for office. He is a kid with an opinion. People are listening to his opinion because he survived a mass shooting at his school where his friends and classmates were murdered by a clearly mentally ill 18-year-old legally bought his weapon, an AR-15, without hassle. 

 

His opinion is that purchase should not have been possible. I agree with him. The majority of Americans, including lawful gun owners, support tighter restrictions, particularly universal background checks implemented nationally. Local restrictions are half-measures; a high percentage of gun violence in Chicago come from weapons purchased legally in Indiana. 

 

Hogg isn't as focused on the failures of the local sheriff/FBI because that is not the core issue — because Parkland isn't unique. There are an unacceptable rate of mass shootings & school shootings, particularly since the 2008 Heller decision. Solving this is going to require changing something; despite many attempts, ignoring it hasn't worked.

 

Improving mental health services would be wonderful, but how would this not necessitate higher taxes? The left is obviously onboard with better nationalized healthcare,  and now the right controls the entire government. So what's the hold up here? 

 

Furthermore, I don't understand this overall insistence, only from the right, that Hogg must hold opinions on every subject (tangential but relevant: on a separate board, someone was arguing that Hogg had a filthy mouth and why isn't he focused on the unborn fetuses murdered every year? "because he wasn't the victim of a mass abortion, genius") — while at the same time, criticize him for being too public.

 

The right has been floating various contradictory ideas — is he a liar? is he a puppet? is he an actor? is he an opportunist? — with the unifying thread being it's aimed to discredit. Even if it means going to slander, libel, name-calling. A photoshopped meme of Emma Gonzalez tearing up the Constitution makes the rounds because there are plenty among the right who will share fake crap without a second thought if it aligns with their perception.

 

All the while, the right appears to be absolutely unwilling to even consider the Parkland kids at face value: why can't Hogg simply be an angry teenager with an interest in debate/journalism/politics? Maybe he's got some mild Asperger's, but he's not some major mystery — I remember kids in HS being like Hogg. Their dads weren't in the FBI but some were in law enforcement and military background. That tends to make the kids interested in politics/history, because dad is. It really is not hard to understand Hogg or the Parkland kids if you just put yourself in their shoes and ask what you might do, if you were 16 or 17, and this happened in your school? 

 

Keeping in mind that it is in Florida, where a lot of the worst gun violence has occurred: Orlando was last year, Trayvon Martin a few years ago... and too many others. So, this is both shocking and not surprising. Keeping in mind that teenagers in 2018 are far more comfortable on camera than older generations can fully comprehend, I think, and the older one is, the more difficult it might be to relate to the level of intuitiveness kids have with media and publicness. 

 

tl;dr There are far more examples of unfair criticism of Hogg than fair criticism — on this board, and in right-leaning media. There appears to be almost no effort, on this board and in right-leaning media, to consider what Hogg & the Parkland kids & the Chicago kids & March For Our Lives are saying in good faith.

 

I'm wondering if you agree/disagree with that statement?

See above. I didn't ecen read it. But he wrote all of that thinking anyone here will care because it's likely written st s 3rd grade level with little to no substance to your questioning

[Koko78]

8 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Yeah.  Looking back at his posts he seems to purposely use straw man arguments.  I just thought he had a reading comprehension problem.

 

I stopped giving a schiff about his posts when he invented the narrative that those who disagreed with him supported NAMBLA, the repeatedly railed against the position that those who disagree support child molesters.

 

He's a disingenuous lying piece of crap who sabotages whatever coherent point he may have been trying to make with his idiotic diatribes.

Edited March 31, 2018 by Koko78

[LA Grant]

2 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

What's funny is you're stupid as hell.

 

What's funny is you actually believe I am, as well.

 

What's funny is I'm fairly !@#$ing smart and highly intelligent. I suck at popular topics most people here would school me on but when it comes to someone talking about math and such I hardly believe you to be anyone wortthy of discussing intellect.

 

Nonetheless, deflect from the question. It's your MO. Which is modus operandi. That's Greek for meaning "main idea", if you're too stupid to know anything...

Wanna start with me big boy?  Start rumors about me.  **** the facts are worse anyway.

 

Rumors you perpetuate because you grasp at reasons to hate is rather disgusting. You choose to surround yourself with negativity. That's ugly, brah.  Tibs, busey, others are willfully retarded, like Wendy or Gary the conquerer. They don't know better. Others like cugalwhatever and whatever reddog is these days are honest in their purity and beliefs and good people despite having a great frustration and possibly hatred of trump. Others like you are just a bitter, sad sack of **** that exists in humanity.  I've read your take enough, and while I no way doubt you might be decent and well off in life I perpetuate you to be a very unhappy and shallow man who has lost a great deal of opportunity by his own lack of volition. It must suck to be you.

 

To the bolded — you didn't ask a question, ding-dong. Your previous "question" earned itself a satisfactory reply. If you're not satisfied, you can get your money back.

 

To me being bitter sad sack of **** — hmm, i wouldn't disagree. we are all wretched, we are all Bills fans. 

 

To me being dishonest — so am I dumb or dishonest or sad or all of the above or what? What's interesting is I am being made out to be this lightning rod, and no matter what subject I am trying to get you to focus on, it's always just personal, personal, personal, attack, attack, attack. So, I give it right back. I've been consistently clear about this, the entire time, multiple posts, probably even to you weeks ago. If I were Rhino, I'd go into a bit about being offended that you haven't read all of my posts then claim I print out the entire board every night and adds it to a leather-bound hardcover. 

 

To you being smart and highly intelligent — Look I'm not going to diss your smarts again, because though I'm happy to hit back, I'm not a bully. What one could say here is that I am actually being bullied by bullies who think I'm bullying them, lol. I've heard that before from conservatives, too, that the Parkland kids are 'bullying' lawful gun owners. I think they're getting 'bullied' confused with 'feeling shame.'

 

To your credit — I will say you are interesting in your contradictions. You show curiosity from time to time, occasional self-awareness & reflection, the rare instance of reasonableness. On the other hand, you're easily the foulest poster on PPP and most likely to use slurs. Could give a whole list of superlatives but I think you kinda just like the attention in a masochistic way.

 

Build a better Boyst — less slurs, more curious.

 

1 hour ago, Boyst62 said:

I'd diagnose him as delusional, frustrated/contemptuous and essentially suffering from a great lack of inferriority

See above. I didn't ecen read it. But he wrote all of that thinking anyone here will care because it's likely written st s 3rd grade level with little to no substance to your questioning

 

Sigh. 

 

I give you the benefit of the doubt, and then you sh*t all over the floor in the next moment.

 

There's around a half-dozen unforced errors in your three sentence post, so it's kinda astounding to describe my post as "3rd grade level." You're something else, Boyst.

Edited March 31, 2018 by LA Grant

[Doc Brown]

16 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Two-part response. The shorter of the two is — You were mentioning fair criticism coming from the media. Wondering if the majority of critical media on Hogg has been fair or unfair? 

 

The longer one: Hogg is not running for office. He is a kid with an opinion. People are listening to his opinion because he survived a mass shooting at his school where his friends and classmates were murdered by a clearly mentally ill 18-year-old legally bought his weapon, an AR-15, without hassle. 

 

His opinion is that purchase should not have been possible. I agree with him. The majority of Americans, including lawful gun owners, support tighter restrictions, particularly universal background checks implemented nationally. Local restrictions are half-measures; a high percentage of gun violence in Chicago come from weapons purchased legally in Indiana. 

 

Hogg isn't as focused on the failures of the local sheriff/FBI because that is not the core issue — because Parkland isn't unique. There are an unacceptable rate of mass shootings & school shootings, particularly since the 2008 Heller decision. Solving this is going to require changing something; despite many attempts, ignoring it hasn't worked.

 

Improving mental health services would be wonderful, but how would this not necessitate higher taxes? The left is obviously onboard with better nationalized healthcare,  and now the right controls the entire government. So what's the hold up here? 

 

Furthermore, I don't understand this overall insistence, only from the right, that Hogg must hold opinions on every subject (tangential but relevant: on a separate board, someone was arguing that Hogg had a filthy mouth and why isn't he focused on the unborn fetuses murdered every year? "because he wasn't the victim of a mass abortion, genius") — while at the same time, criticize him for being too public.

 

The right has been floating various contradictory ideas — is he a liar? is he a puppet? is he an actor? is he an opportunist? — with the unifying thread being it's aimed to discredit. Even if it means going to slander, libel, name-calling. A photoshopped meme of Emma Gonzalez tearing up the Constitution makes the rounds because there are plenty among the right who will share fake crap without a second thought if it aligns with their perception.

 

All the while, the right appears to be absolutely unwilling to even consider the Parkland kids at face value: why can't Hogg simply be an angry teenager with an interest in debate/journalism/politics? Maybe he's got some mild Asperger's, but he's not some major mystery — I remember kids in HS being like Hogg. Their dads weren't in the FBI but some were in law enforcement and military background. That tends to make the kids interested in politics/history, because dad is. It really is not hard to understand Hogg or the Parkland kids if you just put yourself in their shoes and ask what you might do, if you were 16 or 17, and this happened in your school? 

 

Keeping in mind that it is in Florida, where a lot of the worst gun violence has occurred: Orlando was last year, Trayvon Martin a few years ago... and too many others. So, this is both shocking and not surprising. Keeping in mind that teenagers in 2018 are far more comfortable on camera than older generations can fully comprehend, I think, and the older one is, the more difficult it might be to relate to the level of intuitiveness kids have with media and publicness. 

 

tl;dr There are far more examples of unfair criticism of Hogg than fair criticism — on this board, and in right-leaning media. There appears to be almost no effort, on this board and in right-leaning media, to consider what Hogg & the Parkland kids & the Chicago kids & March For Our Lives are saying in good faith.

 

I'm wondering if you agree/disagree with that statement?

All I can tell you is my opinion and that Hogg's he's a political opportunist based on what I've observed up to this point.  His personal push to have advertisers boycott Ingraham's show even after she apologized gives me more confidence I'm correct.  You can disagree with me and that's fine.

 

As far as your question, I don't know what posters or right wing media sources you're referring to so I can't answer that with a simple agree/disagree answer.

[LA Grant]

2 hours ago, Koko78 said:

I stopped giving a schiff about his posts when he invented the narrative that those who disagreed with him supported NAMBLA, the repeatedly railed against the position that those who disagree support child molesters.

 

He's a disingenuous lying piece of crap who sabotages whatever coherent point he may have been trying to make with his idiotic diatribes.

 

Okay except that's an inaccurate misrepresentation of the NAMBLA slam, Koko. My posts are public, you can read them, I even explained the context. Here it is again, the idea goes like this: if you say 2A is absolute & immutable, then 1A is absolute & immutable. This means "arms" means more than "firearms." It also means "free speech" can't be overruled by Supreme Court, therefore, child pornography is legal nationally. Absolutist arguments are very stupid in many ways, but drawing this parallel is the clearest way to clown on contradictions. Generally, 2A arguments come from hardcore libertarian constitutionalist types in the Glenn Beck-iest version of it, like Tasker; or they come from ignorant folks who hear the refrain of "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" enough to assume that's the end of the discussion without fully considering it. 2A is just one of the common counters in absolute opposition to improving gun restrictions, but they are all contradictory, speculative, emotional, selfish. There is no evidence that you, private citizen, owning a firearm gives me liberty that I wouldn't have if you didn't own a gun. Every anti-gun-restriction argument ultimately boils down to "I don't want to be inconvenienced."

 

Owning a gun does not give you liberty+. You just get a gun. 2A did not protect Philando Castile from being murdered by the government. It wouldn't have been better for him if he'd used the gun in defense, rather than stating calmly to the officer that he had a gun. Examples of police violence like this contradict the idea that an armed populace is better protected against the state. 2A did not prevent Japanese internment camps during WWII. 

 

It's interesting that you're more offended by me calling Tasker names, considering that (a) name-calling is a given here; Boyst regularly uses slurs and don't see you calling it out (b) "nobody cares about your feelings" is the status quo attitude here, (c) you're comfortable calling names — and last but not least, (d) that any of that is somehow more offensive to you & more worth your ire, than Nikolas Cruz legally buying an AR-15.

 

There's so much blather about 2A in theory, but Nikolas Cruz having easy access to buying an AR-15 is an example of what the current legal interpretation of 2A does in practice. It makes guns really f***ng easy to get for any idiot who wants one. It would be a huge stretch to argue that's how the Founders intended for 2A to work. 

 

Private ownership of firearms isn't even the best way to combat an oppressive government, if it ever was. What would be more helpful in protecting rights and individual sovereignty against an over-reaching oppressive government would be more requirements for full transparency from all levels of government. Simpler voter registration laws. Abolition of gerrymandering & abolition of the electoral college. Fair representation. All votes from all legal citizens should count equally. Streamlined process of proposing bills, and more direct voter input on potential laws. Things like this would absolutely help guarantee more liberty & freedoms to individual people, by improving the "democracy" in our "representative democracy" machinery. I'm not advocating for "repeal & replace" for 2A, but if I were, I'd argue that the spirit of 2A is more about protecting individual rights against government overreach, than it is about owning firearms; as such, there should be clarification on ways like the ones I outlined that would provide the individual more concessions from the gov't.

 

If we agreed that 2A is about protecting the individual from government overreach, that should be justification to protect Snowden. "The right to bear arms" — arms does not exclusively mean firearms. If it did, it would be "firearms." An "arm" is a weapon; in Snowden's case, you could make the argument that he was using information as a weapon against government overreach, and his whistleblowing should be protected under 2A.

 

It's not like I'm inventing this line of thinking. I'm just the one of only a few representing that viewpoint here, for whatever reason. Probably because, like Coach Tuesday indicated, most TSW people generally don't want to have to deal with the kind of malignant idiocy that runs rampant on PPP. Who can blame them? 

 

Bottom line: Clowning on Tasker for being an idiot SHOULDN'T be more offensive to you than the overall problem of mass shootings due to unconsciously loose gun laws that quite specifically benefit the deranged, like Nikolas Cruz. This problem is, has been, continues to be since Parkland, is a much bigger one than being limited to this specific bad actor. The current gun laws do not make practical sense. They ought to be changed. Most popular/agreed-upon "common sense solution" is national universal background checks.

 

Phew. That's a lot of typing, but I'm having to explain a bunch of sh*t and then also introduce the ideas to make it clear; of course, doing so also means I'm being too long or pedantic. If I'm not criticized for one, then it's the other. It's similar tactics as applied to Hogg, or Kaep, for that matter. Again, goes back to — anytime the right hears a message they dislike, they deflect the message, ignore it, and work to discredit the messenger. 

 

The second coming of Jesus Christ would be thoroughly attacked by today's rightwing media. "Yeah I'm gonna listen to this delusional idiot? Get a job, hippie." "Pfft, water into wine? Parlor trick. Fake news." "I heard he sleeps with prostitutes yet he talks about the laws of God? He's not just an asshat, he's a criminal"

Edited March 31, 2018 by LA Grant

[LA Grant]

46 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

All I can tell you is my opinion and that Hogg's he's a political opportunist based on what I've observed up to this point.  His personal push to have advertisers boycott Ingraham's show even after she apologized gives me more confidence I'm correct.  You can disagree with me and that's fine.

 

As far as your question, I don't know what posters or right wing media sources you're referring to so I can't answer that with a simple agree/disagree answer.

 

Okay. To your opinion — okay, so even if we label him a "political opportunist," why is he wrong to express his opinion? Since he didn't organize the school shooting himself, it's not as though he engineered this. He happened to be interviewed by the media, as is common after any tragedy. We hear from the victims. In this case, the victims happened to want to speak out. It's not an agree/disagree thing — I understand your personal opinion that he's an "opportunist," and that Ingraham is fair to mock him on his public tweet talking about rejection letters.  

 

I'm asking: Why is it wrong for him to speak? Even just in this specific example: why is it okay for Ingraham, but not okay for Hogg?

 

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

There are far more examples of unfair criticism of Hogg than fair criticism — on this board, and in right-leaning media. There appears to be almost no effort, on this board and in right-leaning media, to consider what Hogg & the Parkland kids & the Chicago kids & March For Our Lives are saying in good faith.

 

I'm wondering if you agree/disagree with that statement?

 

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

As far as your question, I don't know what posters or right wing media sources you're referring to so I can't answer that with a simple agree/disagree answer.

 

8 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Okay. To your opinion — okay, so even if we label him a "political opportunist," why is he wrong to express his opinion? Since he didn't organize the school shooting himself, it's not as though he engineered this. He happened to be interviewed by the media, as is common after any tragedy. We hear from the victims. In this case, the victims happened to want to speak out. It's not an agree/disagree thing — I understand your personal opinion that he's an "opportunist," and that Ingraham is fair to mock him on his public tweet talking about rejection letters.  

 

I'm asking: Why is it wrong for him to speak? Even just in this specific example: why is it okay for Ingraham, but not okay for Hogg?

 

Yikes.  I never said it was wrong for him to speak as you keep putting words in my mouth.  I disapprove of him going after her advertisers for the purpose of silencing her and possibly getting her off the air for a relatively minor inappropriate tweet.