Biden Tracker (2 Viewers)

[Farb]

For all the things related to the Biden/Harris Administration and their latest hits and misses

https://www.dailywire.com/news/whit...gedly-sexually-harassing-threatening-reporter

Interesting story, looks like 'only the best people' didn't stop with the new administration.

 

[Farb]

Ok buddy, I think I stated French gun laws are very restrictive and far from perfect. Pretty sure speeding tickets shouldn't be part of a criminal record but I have no problem preventing a person with multiple DUI's from owning a gun....you know sound judgement and all...

But the results speak for themselves....Less than 1/5 of the gun deaths we have here...but that doesn't matter at all to the NRA or their ilk....

Do the French count suicides as deaths by firearms? We do.

 

[Devildog]

I seriously am.

There's nothing you can say that anyone here will take seriously.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I seriously am.

In that case, I encourage you to look into learning some media literacy tools. Ayo posted about one sometime last year that can be found here:

Doubt it? Check it. Challenge it.

Today fake news is everywhere. Learn how to spot it with these simple tips.

doubtit.ca

The thread he started can be found here:

Media Literacy and Fake News

The Canadian Journalism Federation is taking fake news very seriously. I've worked with media literacy for years, and this is - to date - the most expansively public approach that I've seen, in advance of the Federal Election...

madaboutpolitics.com

 

[SFIDC3]

Do the French count suicides as deaths by firearms? We do.

It's not a we and them thing. World population review shows that (thus far in 2021) France averages 2.83 deaths per 100k (.21 as the result of a homicide). The US? 12.21 and 4.46....suicide rates are included in these measures.

Gun Deaths by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[Booker]

There's nothing you can say that anyone here will take seriously.

 

[nolaspe]

Jen dunking on gym is a thing of glory... plus, you know there was that whole lockdown thing that meant no one was really driving that much...

 

[Maxp]

The higher gas price argument from the right is so dumb. Are they arguing that oil companies want low price per barrel? The large oil companies can make money offshore at $40 a barrel, but would they ever turn down $70? No way.

 

[JRad]

The higher gas price argument from the right is so dumb. Are they arguing that oil companies want low price per barrel? The large oil companies can make money offshore at $40 a barrel, but would they ever turn down $70? No way.

Yea if you think oil companies weren’t going to make up for last year, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Farb]

There's nothing you can say that anyone here will take seriously.

That is probably one of the kindest thing anyone has said to me. Thank you.
I agree, I don't think I necessarily belong on this short bus either but it is always refreshing to know the mentally ill don't agree you.

 

[Devildog]

That is probably one of the kindest thing anyone has said to me. Thank you.
I agree, I don't think I necessarily belong on this short bus either but it is always refreshing to know the mentally ill don't agree you.

I find it funny you respond to me. Someone who doesn't post a whole lot but can't stand your schtick. But you don't respond to other's legitimate questions or statements. Is it because you're afraid you might be found out as a fraud? Oh, wait.....

 

[Farb]

I find it funny you respond to me. Someone who doesn't post a whole lot but can't stand your schtick. But you don't respond to other's legitimate questions or statements. Is it because you're afraid you might be found out as a fraud? Oh, wait.....

Nope, I just enjoy engaging with those that can't stand my schtick, much as you do apparently.
Are you saying I don't believe in what I say my principles are? That would be a fraud. I don't think there are any frauds on this board. I won't be beaten and berated into silence or agreement because I share a different opinion, that doesn't make me a fraud.

 

[brandon]

Nope, I just enjoy engaging with those that can't stand my schtick, much as you do apparently.

Putting me on ignore says otherwise.

I know you don’t read these things, but I have to point out how often you’re a hypocrite for my own benefit.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Nope, I just enjoy engaging with those that can't stand my schtick, much as you do apparently.

I believe those who engage in such a way are called... trolls. But this internet thing can be tricky at times.

 

[superchuck500]

Well, as definitive and articulate as the arguments made in the Heller case which upheld the notion that right to own a firearm is guaranteed, but not an absolute right, quite a few liberals disagreed with that decision and likely still do, probably in their own individual ways. I'm just saying that even established legal precedents set forth down by SCOTUS decisions, whether it be abortion, or the death penalty, can be whittled away bit by bit. It took nearly a century to dismantle Plessy v. Ferguson narrowing the interpretations of the 13th, 14th amendments regarding civil rights and overturning state-sanctioned public segregation laws but thankfully, it occurred and even after Brown v. Board of Education, most of the Deep South remained a literal war zone for nearly 2 decades afterwards as politicians, hate groups, even working in concert with local and state business elites(States Citizens Councils, "Klansmen in business suits") tried to block, obfuscate, and then limit the progress of federally passed laws guaranteeing civil and voting rights for African-Americans.

I mean, its been almost 50 years since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion and there's still vehement lines in the sand and bitter legal and emotional arguments saying Roe might be overturned eventually. Just like Roe v. Wade, or IIRC, the Gregg v. Georgia case (1976) that made death penalty constitutional again, Heller's legal framework can be attacked and dismantled no matter how some believe its merits are impeachable and ironclad. Some aspects of Patriot Act allows federal law authorities and intelligent agencies in theory, power to pursue leads that wouldve seemed unthinkable 40 years ago, but yet here we are.

It doesn’t matter what some liberals thought of Heller and the analogy to abortion or the death penalty is weak at best. The right to arms is express in the Second Amendment, and while there’s room to debate limitations, making personal weapons illegal in America is beyond far-fetched at this point. The only people even talking about it are the gun lobby and pols on the right who are trying to use gun enthusiasm to win votes.

 

[Saintman2884]

The higher gas price argument from the right is so dumb. Are they arguing that oil companies want low price per barrel? The large oil companies can make money offshore at $40 a barrel, but would they ever turn down $70? No way.

Maxp, the era of big, large oil and natural gas companies or multi-national corporations having a large, extremely influential role in consumer production or consumer needs in the roles of millions of American lives day-to-day is very gradually coming to an incremental end. It may take us another 10-15 years, but by then oil and natural gas won't have near-absolute they've enjoyed since the mid-late 19th century. They still be important, perhaps but with renewable, alternative "green" technologies that actually work, are highly efficient, durable and don't have political or environmental idealogues screaming chants and slogans all the time THAT, NOW, NOW, NOW is the time and if we don't conform to their timetables, some of them insinuate we're all blind, idiotic, stupid criminals or self I righteously claim we're being "selfish". Oil companies likely won't be making huge, enormously record-setting profits 20 years from now unless they evolve and start to successfully co-op or hijack the development, research and production of renewable, "green" non-carbon energy sources.

I will say this about Robert Redford, I may disagree with some of his political opinions, but at least his views on environmental issues in the past sounded more realistic, not so harsh-sounding, unbending and uncompromising as some of the newer, more strident ones that have emerged in the past 15-20 years.

 

[Saintman2884]

It doesn’t matter what some liberals thought of Heller and the analogy to abortion or the death penalty is weak at best. The right to arms is express in the Second Amendment, and while there’s room to debate limitations, making personal weapons illegal in America is beyond far-fetched at this point. The only people even talking about it are the gun lobby and pols on the right who are trying to use gun enthusiasm to win votes.

If the Heller analogy is weak, then why almost 50 years after Roe v. Wade is the constitutionality of legalized access to abortion still a red-hot, cruise missile.of an issue. What is it about the very legal arguments in that case that has split this country into a decades-long, undeclared cultural civil war, has been, along with other hot-button socio-political issues like affirmative action, death penalty, why are still seemingly stuck in the 1970's on the very legal philosophical basis for Roe v. Wade?

When I was at USA, I didnt take too many legal courses, but I was a Philosophy minor as well as a Political Science minor, and one of my Philosophy professors told me that the actual legal proceedings, the factors, determinations were all closely and meticulously examined. They exhaustively looked and examined Roe v. Wade closely, more so, some legal experts then other major, landmark SCOTUS rulings. What is it the Berger's court ruling on that issue that has led to nearly 50 years of bitter, legal and emotional acrimony and why its very legal existence may be in jeopardy next summer? I know that famous liberal Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote an legal review opinion where she felt that while she agreed with Roe's decision, she felt the legal timing and processing weren't implemented correctly.

And when we discuss limitations, there's always bitter, vociferous arguments about just what constitutes "common-sense" gun control legislation or what form does it take and whether or not, it too, will be declared unconstitutional like California's ban of semiautomatic weapons a few weeks ago?

 

[superchuck500]

If the Heller analogy is weak, then why almost 50 years after Roe v. Wade is the constitutionality of legalized access to abortion still a red-hot, cruise missile.of an issue. What is it about the very legal arguments in that case that has split this country into a decades-long, undeclared cultural civil war, has been, along with other hot-button socio-political issues like affirmative action, death penalty, why are still seemingly stuck in the 1970's on the very legal philosophical basis for Roe v. Wade?

When I was at USA, I didnt take too many legal courses, but I was a Philosophy minor as well as a Political Science minor, and one of my Philosophy professors told me that the actual legal proceedings, the factors, determinations were all closely and meticulously examined. They exhaustively looked and examined Roe v. Wade closely, more so, some legal experts then other major, landmark SCOTUS rulings. What is it the Berger's court ruling on that issue that has led to nearly 50 years of bitter, legal and emotional acrimony and why its very legal existence may be in jeopardy next summer? I know that famous liberal Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote an legal review opinion where she felt that while she agreed with Roe's decision, she felt the legal timing and processing weren't implemented correctly.

And when we discuss limitations, there's always bitter, vociferous arguments about just what constitutes "common-sense" gun control legislation or what form does it take and whether or not, it too, will be declared unconstitutional like California's ban of semiautomatic weapons a few weeks ago?

And now we're back where we started when I asked if you're aware that there's a Second Amendment. It is express. It is written right there in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Your comment that prompted my response was that gun control is subject to incrementalism, suggesting that what may begin with something like a registration requirement may end up with banning guns. But that can't happen because the Second Amendment is express, it is direct, and as a matter of stare decisis it means that Americans can possess and bear arms as an individual right.

There is no such express right of abortion, nor is there any coverage in the Constitution of anything like abortion or associated personal health choice issues. Instead the framework for the decision is grounded in individual liberty, which is certainly expressed in the Constitution and founding documents but concluding that this express notion of liberty translates to an abortion right is subject to meaningful debate . . . and perhaps ultimately a revised view from the Court.

But this discussion isn't about abortion and I think using the abortion debate to contend that the legal dynamics associated with the Second Amendment right are similarly fluid is unpersuasive.

 

[brandon]

And now we're back where we started when I asked if you're aware that there's a Second Amendment. It is express. It is written right there in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Your comment that prompted my response was that gun control is subject to incrementalism, suggesting that what may begin with something like a registration requirement may end up with banning guns. But that can't happen because the Second Amendment is express, it is direct, and as a matter of stare decisis it means that Americans can possess and bear arms as an individual right.

There is no such express right of abortion, nor is there any coverage in the Constitution of anything like abortion or associated personal health choice issues. Instead the framework for the decision is grounded in individual liberty, which is certainly expressed in the Constitution and founding documents but concluding that this express notion of liberty translates to an abortion right is subject to meaningful debate . . . and perhaps ultimately a revised view from the Court.

But this discussion isn't about abortion and I think using the abortion debate to contend that the legal dynamics associated with the Second Amendment right are similarly fluid is unpersuasive.

You might just make a good lawyer someday.