[quote]smh23 wrote:
…however intelligent he may be, Barack Obama is no stranger to stereotype and prejudice.[/quote]
None of us know how intelligent Obama is. Unlike his many predecessors we are unable to view his college records, SAT’s or his IQ information.
Now why do you suppose that is?
And why do you suppose that the media is not talking about the lack of information endlessly?
Also…there is no way that the shooting was a hoax. This society had bred hundreds of thousands of psycho malcontents one of them got loose and killed innocent people. Sadly it will continue to happen. Not because there are guns available, but because this is a symptom of a deep rooted societal disease.
The government can take every single gun out of the hands of every law abiding American and the crazy people which have sprung from this dysfunctional society will find a way to harm the innocent.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Here I was, hoping to debunk with a contrary source, and all I got was a door-to-door tragedy vulture nobody.
Do you at least, through your connections as a media reporter, have any pictures of shell casings at the front of the school? Bullet holes in the front of the school? The blown-out door? Anything credible that I can use to debunk the hoax theory?[/quote]
How unfortunate that you read news and yet disapprove of the manner in which it’s gathered.
That you think the Sandy Hook-was-a-hoax crowd’s argument is strong enough to justify my sharing the details of my work–details which I wouldn’t even share with posters whose opinions I respect–is unbelievable. I will remind you that there are kids who aren’t growing up right now because of what happened. And what you say is, what? “I might have a source on the inside?”
You might, you might not. I very much doubt it, but I can’t know for sure. What I do know for sure is that the belief you’re espousing is as baseless, tasteless, and repugnant as beliefs can possibly be–that it makes 9/11 “trutherism” look like peer-reviewed scholarship. I know that this kind of surreal idiocy only enters the weakest kind of minds. And I know that I’m not going to spend any more time debating something like this.
Jay my friend, you are way, way off base on this one.
Bill Clinton couldn’t even keep oral sex between him and one other person a secret. And you actually think that something like this could be pulled off? It wouldn’t even be tried…Trust me if they want our guns, and they do, they will find much better ways of getting them.
Why did Obama not answer questions at a press conference like the other presidents?
Of course you’re not. Because you just got caught in a bald-faced lie and now you’re going to run.
The weakest kind of minds? College professors unable to reconcile the official story with the evidence? Acting school instructors who point out obvious acting mistakes? LE interrogators who point out tells that make them believe that people are lying?
Yes, yes, as a door-to-door after-the-fact reporter, you are most certainly of a higher mental capacity.
So even if you are a “reporter” who was there picking at the carcass “(which I very, very, very much doubt), I’d say fuck [you] because [you are] completely full of shit, and spitting on the graves of the innocent dead.”
"The Bombing of Pearl Harbor
On 7 December 1941 the greatest disaster in United States history occurred. Truly this was and is, ??A date which will live in infamy.??(Costello 1), but not for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, rather for the deception and the mis-guidance used by the Government and Franklin D. Roosevelt. In a purely artificial chess game Roosevelt sacrificed over 2400 American Seamen?s lives, thanks to his power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. By over-looking the obvious facts of an attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was able to control both the political and economic systems of the United States. Most of American society before the Pearl Harbor bombing believed in the idea of isolationism.
Franklin D. Roosevelt knew this, and knew the only way in which United States countrymen would take arms and fight in Europe?s War was to be an overt action against the United States by a member of the Axis Power. Roosevelt also believed Hitler would not declare war on the United States unless he knew they were beatable. There are numerous accounts of actions by Roosevelt and his top armed forces advisors, which reveal they were not only aware of an attack by Japan, but also they were planning on it, and instigating that attack. On 7 October 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote the eight-action memo."
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Of course you’re not. Because you just got caught in a bald-faced lie and now you’re going to run.
The weakest kind of minds? College professors unable to reconcile the official story with the evidence? Acting school instructors who point out obvious acting mistakes? LE interrogators who point out tells that make them believe that people are lying?
Yes, yes, as a door-to-door after-the-fact reporter, you are most certainly of a higher mental capacity.
So even if you are a “reporter” who was there picking at the carcass “(which I very, very, very much doubt), I’d say fuck [you] because [you are] completely full of shit, and spitting on the graves of the innocent dead.”[/quote]
Which lie is this?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jay my friend, you are way, way off base on this one.
Bill Clinton couldn’t even keep oral sex between him and one other person a secret. And you actually think that something like this could be pulled off? It wouldn’t even be tried…Trust me if they want our guns, and they do, they will find much better ways of getting them. [/quote]
Well, that very well could be because Clinton was too narcissistic to keep his trap shut.
How about this little gem:
“Our cause has been aided by the deaths of all these children in all these schools, and in other settings.”
Aaaaand what ‘cause’ could possibly benefit from kids dying, Bill?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Of course you’re not. Because you just got caught in a bald-faced lie and now you’re going to run.
The weakest kind of minds? College professors unable to reconcile the official story with the evidence? Acting school instructors who point out obvious acting mistakes? LE interrogators who point out tells that make them believe that people are lying?
Yes, yes, as a door-to-door after-the-fact reporter, you are most certainly of a higher mental capacity.
So even if you are a “reporter” who was there picking at the carcass “(which I very, very, very much doubt), I’d say fuck [you] because [you are] completely full of shit, and spitting on the graves of the innocent dead.”[/quote]
Which lie is this?[/quote]
Pick one.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Of course you’re not. Because you just got caught in a bald-faced lie and now you’re going to run.
The weakest kind of minds? College professors unable to reconcile the official story with the evidence? Acting school instructors who point out obvious acting mistakes? LE interrogators who point out tells that make them believe that people are lying?
Yes, yes, as a door-to-door after-the-fact reporter, you are most certainly of a higher mental capacity.
So even if you are a “reporter” who was there picking at the carcass “(which I very, very, very much doubt), I’d say fuck [you] because [you are] completely full of shit, and spitting on the graves of the innocent dead.”[/quote]
Which lie is this?[/quote]
Pick one.[/quote]
Ah yes, a journalist whose only steady work involves intermittent trips to Mexico lives 8 exits on i-84 away from the site of a monumental news story and decided not to make the trip. Because, you know, gas is so expensive.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Bill Clinton couldn’t even keep oral sex between him and one other person a secret. And you actually think that something like this could be pulled off? It wouldn’t even be tried [/quote]
Exactly.
Awright, there seems to be a pretty much universal pro-gun consensus here. Because I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, I’m going to try to put forward the opposing point of view; perhaps I’ll get some thought-provoking responses. Basically, I think the case against gun control in this and the last thread is very weak.
First of all, let’s be clear about what I’m trying to argue: I think we’re safer without lots of guns than with them, so I’m in favour of gun control. Whether or not gun control could happen or would work in the particular case of the US is a different matter, and not really my business anyway.
I’ll start with four points: (1) more guns = more deaths; (2) why sensational shootings like Connecticut point to tighter gun control; (3) the 2nd amendment; (4) the “freedom” argument.
Because so much has been said about how gun-control advocates ignore the facts and argue only on the basis of emotion, here are my facts: http://guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/moregunsmoredeaths2012.pdf
So that’s the first reason I think we’re safer without guns. In particular, the fact that we’re talking about international boundaries is significant. Because US state boundaries are open, the result of a city like DC (or a state) banning guns is not terribly meaningful - you can easily bring guns in from neighboring states.
Really, a position on gun control shouldn’t be based on some media firestorm. Nevertheless, the reason that these mass shootings suggest to me tighter gun restrictions is that they will make such events less frequent. You’re never going to eliminate mass killings - in populations numbering tens of millions, the odds are, you’re going to get some pretty deranged whackos - but the harder it is to get implements of killing, the less these things will happen, and that applies to suicides, domestic shootings, etc. as well. Guys like the Colorado killer, who plot for months in advance, will always find a way, but many, many people who have some mental episode, or who lack self control, or who get extremely angry in some dispute (etc.) will simply never harm anyone if the means of killing someone almost effortlessly (i.e., guns) are not close at hand. I think the facts above back this up. The last thread had a lot of straw-man knocking on this sort of thing: nobody is saying we’re going to END murder or violence if we restrict guns.
The 2nd amendment. Not really my business, and obviously I’m against it, at least in the way it’s interpreted today. I just want to point out the consequence of an argument I saw repeatedly in the last thread: if you’re going to ban guns to make us safe (it was said) why not ban knives and baseball bats and chainsaws (etc., etc., etc.)? (My answer is in pt. 2 above) This can be turned on its head: if you’re going to ALLOW guns, why not tanks, heavy artillery, surface to air missiles, nuclear material & other WMD? See, it seems to me that nobody actually believes that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed tout court. The question is where the line falls. More specifically, the question would be how to interpret the second amendment, which was written in a different world, for our own time.
I don’t see any argument that guns support freedom. First of all, I don’t think freedom is any more secure in the US than in most other Western democracy, but the real question is, how could guns secure freedom? I see several possible scenarios. (a) A tyrant has control of the US government, but not its army. An armed populace is irrelevant here; the tyrant won’t last long. (b) A tyrant has control of the US government and the whole army. I don’t see a populace armed with guns & rifles being very significant here: they’re not stopping the US military for very long. And even if the people of, say, Denver, with their small arms and MacGuyver-like ingenuity succeed in holding out, the tyrant will just nuke Denver. Does that mean we need to legalise personal nukes? (c) A tyrant has control of the US government, and the army divides 50/50. Maybe an armed populace might have some small effect here, but I don’t really think so. (d) Some foreign tyrant is invading. If he can beat the army, he can beat citizens with handguns.
Maybe it’s wrong to spell out specific scenarios: the basic point is that personal firearms, which could be decisive 200 years ago, are no longer going to accomplish much on their own. You can wage a guerilla war; you’re not going to hold the field. To give the populace the sort of weaponry with which it could meaningfully hold out against a government, you’d need to legalise things that would make major terrorist attacks unthinkably easy to carry out. So I don’t see that guns=freedom.
Also, here’s a link about Israel and guns: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/officials-challenge-nras-claims-about-israeli-gun-policies/article6704341/
Sorry, that was a long post.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Why did Obama not answer questions at a press conference like the other presidents?
[/quote]
Because he doesn’t have to do anything like the other Presidents. He’s been protected by the press since he announced his candidacy and it will continue until his final day in office.
Simple.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jay my friend, you are way, way off base on this one.
Bill Clinton couldn’t even keep oral sex between him and one other person a secret. And you actually think that something like this could be pulled off? It wouldn’t even be tried…Trust me if they want our guns, and they do, they will find much better ways of getting them. [/quote]
Well, that very well could be because Clinton was too narcissistic to keep his trap shut.
How about this little gem:
“Our cause has been aided by the deaths of all these children in all these schools, and in other settings.”
Aaaaand what ‘cause’ could possibly benefit from kids dying, Bill?[/quote]
He was referring to gun control. However make sure that you quote within the context that the comment was made. When the entire paragraph is read it sounds quite a bit different.
Trust me Jay there is no conspiracy to kill innocent children by this or any other administration. This is as wacky a theory as the “Bush did 9-11 theory” that made the rounds here on T Nation.
Let it go you’re smarter than that.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Of course you’re not. Because you just got caught in a bald-faced lie and now you’re going to run.
The weakest kind of minds? College professors unable to reconcile the official story with the evidence? Acting school instructors who point out obvious acting mistakes? LE interrogators who point out tells that make them believe that people are lying?
Yes, yes, as a door-to-door after-the-fact reporter, you are most certainly of a higher mental capacity.
So even if you are a “reporter” who was there picking at the carcass “(which I very, very, very much doubt), I’d say fuck [you] because [you are] completely full of shit, and spitting on the graves of the innocent dead.”[/quote]
Which lie is this?[/quote]
Pick one.[/quote]
Ah yes, a journalist whose only steady work involves intermittent trips to Mexico lives 8 exits on i-84 away from the site of a monumental news story and decided not to make the trip. Because, you know, gas is so expensive.[/quote]
^ This is unbelievable, but it’s totally possible that an entire town full of paid actors and bought-off cops, first responders, firefighters, coroners, and funeral directors was enlisted by the Obama administration to fake the deaths of 26 people in broad daylight. Right? Right?
[quote]nrt wrote:
Awright, there seems to be a pretty much universal pro-gun consensus here. Because I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, I’m going to try to put forward the opposing point of view; perhaps I’ll get some thought-provoking responses. Basically, I think the case against gun control in this and the last thread is very weak.
First of all, let’s be clear about what I’m trying to argue: I think we’re safer without lots of guns than with them, so I’m in favour of gun control. Whether or not gun control could happen or would work in the particular case of the US is a different matter, and not really my business anyway.
I’ll start with four points: (1) more guns = more deaths; (2) why sensational shootings like Connecticut point to tighter gun control; (3) the 2nd amendment; (4) the “freedom” argument.
Because so much has been said about how gun-control advocates ignore the facts and argue only on the basis of emotion, here are my facts: http://guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/moregunsmoredeaths2012.pdf
So that’s the first reason I think we’re safer without guns. In particular, the fact that we’re talking about international boundaries is significant. Because US state boundaries are open, the result of a city like DC (or a state) banning guns is not terribly meaningful - you can easily bring guns in from neighboring states.
Really, a position on gun control shouldn’t be based on some media firestorm. Nevertheless, the reason that these mass shootings suggest to me tighter gun restrictions is that they will make such events less frequent. You’re never going to eliminate mass killings - in populations numbering tens of millions, the odds are, you’re going to get some pretty deranged whackos - but the harder it is to get implements of killing, the less these things will happen, and that applies to suicides, domestic shootings, etc. as well. Guys like the Colorado killer, who plot for months in advance, will always find a way, but many, many people who have some mental episode, or who lack self control, or who get extremely angry in some dispute (etc.) will simply never harm anyone if the means of killing someone almost effortlessly (i.e., guns) are not close at hand. I think the facts above back this up. The last thread had a lot of straw-man knocking on this sort of thing: nobody is saying we’re going to END murder or violence if we restrict guns.
The 2nd amendment. Not really my business, and obviously I’m against it, at least in the way it’s interpreted today. I just want to point out the consequence of an argument I saw repeatedly in the last thread: if you’re going to ban guns to make us safe (it was said) why not ban knives and baseball bats and chainsaws (etc., etc., etc.)? (My answer is in pt. 2 above) This can be turned on its head: if you’re going to ALLOW guns, why not tanks, heavy artillery, surface to air missiles, nuclear material & other WMD? See, it seems to me that nobody actually believes that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed tout court. The question is where the line falls. More specifically, the question would be how to interpret the second amendment, which was written in a different world, for our own time.
I don’t see any argument that guns support freedom. First of all, I don’t think freedom is any more secure in the US than in most other Western democracy, but the real question is, how could guns secure freedom? I see several possible scenarios. (a) A tyrant has control of the US government, but not its army. An armed populace is irrelevant here; the tyrant won’t last long. (b) A tyrant has control of the US government and the whole army. I don’t see a populace armed with guns & rifles being very significant here: they’re not stopping the US military for very long. And even if the people of, say, Denver, with their small arms and MacGuyver-like ingenuity succeed in holding out, the tyrant will just nuke Denver. Does that mean we need to legalise personal nukes? (c) A tyrant has control of the US government, and the army divides 50/50. Maybe an armed populace might have some small effect here, but I don’t really think so. (d) Some foreign tyrant is invading. If he can beat the army, he can beat citizens with handguns.
Maybe it’s wrong to spell out specific scenarios: the basic point is that personal firearms, which could be decisive 200 years ago, are no longer going to accomplish much on their own. You can wage a guerilla war; you’re not going to hold the field. To give the populace the sort of weaponry with which it could meaningfully hold out against a government, you’d need to legalise things that would make major terrorist attacks unthinkably easy to carry out. So I don’t see that guns=freedom.
Also, here’s a link about Israel and guns: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/officials-challenge-nras-claims-about-israeli-gun-policies/article6704341/
Sorry, that was a long post.[/quote]
LOL
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…however intelligent he may be, Barack Obama is no stranger to stereotype and prejudice.[/quote]
None of us know how intelligent Obama is. Unlike his many predecessors we are unable to view his college records, SAT’s or his IQ information.
Now why do you suppose that is?
And why do you suppose that the media is not talking about the lack of information endlessly?
[/quote]
Because nobody gives a damn.
By the way, we know that he graduated in the top 5 percent at HLS, which goes a way toward establishing him as something of a smart guy.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]nrt wrote:
Awright, there seems to be a pretty much universal pro-gun consensus here. Because I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, I’m going to try to put forward the opposing point of view; perhaps I’ll get some thought-provoking responses. Basically, I think the case against gun control in this and the last thread is very weak.
First of all, let’s be clear about what I’m trying to argue: I think we’re safer without lots of guns than with them, so I’m in favour of gun control. Whether or not gun control could happen or would work in the particular case of the US is a different matter, and not really my business anyway.
I’ll start with four points: (1) more guns = more deaths; (2) why sensational shootings like Connecticut point to tighter gun control; (3) the 2nd amendment; (4) the “freedom” argument.
Because so much has been said about how gun-control advocates ignore the facts and argue only on the basis of emotion, here are my facts: http://guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/moregunsmoredeaths2012.pdf
So that’s the first reason I think we’re safer without guns. In particular, the fact that we’re talking about international boundaries is significant. Because US state boundaries are open, the result of a city like DC (or a state) banning guns is not terribly meaningful - you can easily bring guns in from neighboring states.
Really, a position on gun control shouldn’t be based on some media firestorm. Nevertheless, the reason that these mass shootings suggest to me tighter gun restrictions is that they will make such events less frequent. You’re never going to eliminate mass killings - in populations numbering tens of millions, the odds are, you’re going to get some pretty deranged whackos - but the harder it is to get implements of killing, the less these things will happen, and that applies to suicides, domestic shootings, etc. as well. Guys like the Colorado killer, who plot for months in advance, will always find a way, but many, many people who have some mental episode, or who lack self control, or who get extremely angry in some dispute (etc.) will simply never harm anyone if the means of killing someone almost effortlessly (i.e., guns) are not close at hand. I think the facts above back this up. The last thread had a lot of straw-man knocking on this sort of thing: nobody is saying we’re going to END murder or violence if we restrict guns.
The 2nd amendment. Not really my business, and obviously I’m against it, at least in the way it’s interpreted today. I just want to point out the consequence of an argument I saw repeatedly in the last thread: if you’re going to ban guns to make us safe (it was said) why not ban knives and baseball bats and chainsaws (etc., etc., etc.)? (My answer is in pt. 2 above) This can be turned on its head: if you’re going to ALLOW guns, why not tanks, heavy artillery, surface to air missiles, nuclear material & other WMD? See, it seems to me that nobody actually believes that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed tout court. The question is where the line falls. More specifically, the question would be how to interpret the second amendment, which was written in a different world, for our own time.
I don’t see any argument that guns support freedom. First of all, I don’t think freedom is any more secure in the US than in most other Western democracy, but the real question is, how could guns secure freedom? I see several possible scenarios. (a) A tyrant has control of the US government, but not its army. An armed populace is irrelevant here; the tyrant won’t last long. (b) A tyrant has control of the US government and the whole army. I don’t see a populace armed with guns & rifles being very significant here: they’re not stopping the US military for very long. And even if the people of, say, Denver, with their small arms and MacGuyver-like ingenuity succeed in holding out, the tyrant will just nuke Denver. Does that mean we need to legalise personal nukes? (c) A tyrant has control of the US government, and the army divides 50/50. Maybe an armed populace might have some small effect here, but I don’t really think so. (d) Some foreign tyrant is invading. If he can beat the army, he can beat citizens with handguns.
Maybe it’s wrong to spell out specific scenarios: the basic point is that personal firearms, which could be decisive 200 years ago, are no longer going to accomplish much on their own. You can wage a guerilla war; you’re not going to hold the field. To give the populace the sort of weaponry with which it could meaningfully hold out against a government, you’d need to legalise things that would make major terrorist attacks unthinkably easy to carry out. So I don’t see that guns=freedom.
Also, here’s a link about Israel and guns: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/officials-challenge-nras-claims-about-israeli-gun-policies/article6704341/
Sorry, that was a long post.[/quote]
LOL[/quote]
Amazing, we actually agree on something.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Because nobody gives a damn.
By the way, we know that he graduated in the top 5 percent at HLS, which goes a way toward establishing him as something of a smart guy.[/quote]
His lawyers must give a damn because they’ve spent literally millions of dollars suppressing his records. And amonst other clases at Harvard Law School he was taking Derrick Bell’s and was involved in bullying the faculty to fill Bell’s racial quotas.
“Obama and Bell demanded that Harvard hire professors on the basis of race. Obama and other students rallied to Bellâ??s side after Bell quit teaching in an attempt to force Harvard to implement race-based hiring policies.” - Breitbart
This is at a time when Bell was able to gain tenure with a completely unsatisfactory academic record, based solely on his race. He and Obama then bullied faculty into hiring more minorities to fill Bell’s quota. Obama took his classes, taught his work and was involved in his on campus “activism” and bullying of faculty.
And we’re supposed to believe that Obama has a good academic record there because he supposedly graduated in the top 5%? We aren’t allowed to see his academic record - millions to keep that under the covers. Just trust us. He’s a smart guy. We spent millions because we don’t want you to know HOW smart. It might frighten you.
But as I’ve explained before, Michelle Obama graduated cum laude from Princeton and her thesis IS available. I’ve quoted it before on PWI and couldn’t be bothered doing so again. What it shows is that she is only semi-literate and her thesis was a pathetic, sophomoric diatribe about racism at Ivy League schools.