Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1,686
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GW Hayduke

  1. 17 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Neither do mindless appeal to authority dismissals of valid points regarding what is seen by both sides as a real problem with over-medicating children with drugse we do not fully understand.

    Trolling isn’t justified and is a sad response to weak positions. I get that you feel ingrained on the side against gun control, but you don’t have to act like you are argueing from a weak poisition.

  2. 1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

    Is this a joke?  Just stop.  Next thing you'll start citing articles from Vox, oh, wait.....

    Trolling doesn’t add to the discussion. 

  3. 9 minutes ago, XYZ said:

    I’m not sure if you are serious. Have you read the warning labels on some psychotropic medications? They basically say “if you are under 25, this drug could turn you into a homicidal/suicidal monster”. Sometimes drugs produce more harm than good. Example: opioids. You could have said the exact same thing about opioids: “opioids are used to treat pain and are prescribed by medical professionals. Why would we limit the treatment options of medical professionals?”. In many cases, it seems that “medical professionals” just push whatever the industry is peddling. Opioids, statins, SSRIs...if they make billions for pharma, they must be good for you.

    It seems that you don’t trust licenced medical professionals. Who do you trust to treat people who are ill?

  4. I see lots of folks compare our current rates to those in the 80s and early 90s. This is a comparison to a time experiencing a crack-cocaine epidemic and the war on drugs. Yes, rates were higher then. However since the crack wars, change in rates have been relatively flat. 

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

    What is the best way to compare our current rates of firearm violence? IMO looking at just one thing will skew perspective. In order to attempt to grasp a full perspective of a complicated issue such as gun violence in the US, we need to be able to absorb a range of information.

    Vox does an OK job of attempting to do this. Some key points from their presentation. They also have an easy to consume video.

    - US’s rate of firearm violence far exceeds any first world country.

    - US has way more guns per capita than other countries.

    - Mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of the overall firearm deaths in the US.

    - Mass shootings (those with 4 victims) occur about once a day in the US.

    - States with more guns have more gun deaths.

    - Countries with more guns have more gun deaths.

    - The US does not have more violent crime in general than other first world countries. The US has more lethal violence - driven by prevalence in firearms.

    - Areas with more gun regulations tend to have lower rates of firearm deaths.

    - Most gun deaths are suicides.

    - States with more firearms have more suicides.

    - Firearms are much more efficient at suicide. 

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

  5. 11 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

    So if Hillary did not commit a crime then why did Petreous get charged for doing the exact same thing she did?

    I suppose I'm also the only person in this thread who thinks O.J. committed two murders even though he didn't get convicted for them.

     

    I suspect it is because Petraeus plead guilty for actions that involved providing access to top secret information to a reporter and then lied about it. 

    The continued Hillary hatred is really bizarre. 

  6. 8 hours ago, XYZ said:

    That would make sense, so no.

    There are ill people in our society. Psychotropic drugs are used to treat illness and are prescribed by medical professionals. Why would we limit the treatment options of medical professionals?

  7. 11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    Interesting that you assume the persons you disagree with are team members the same as yourself. You then do a text book broad brush by naming Harry Reid, identifying him as Brisket's team then concluding that he is the same as you when it comes to political difference.

    People aren't all the same as you for better or worse. The fate of the nation is not a giant scoreboard. 

    You complete your projection at the end 

    I'll be vain enough to paraphrase myself from another thread. Trump's party has ceased to be a party of ends and has become the hateful, team-oriented party of means. What Trump does or could do is exactly, and infuriatingly, what his supporters applaud. They do not conceptualize and ends other than their imagined hearing of what they imagine to be libs squealing and running for cover.

    A large faction of American citizens have placed themselves beyond rational debate or even consumption of information that contradicts their sense of the game they think they're winning.

    They aren't just supporters of Donald Trump; they become Donald Trump. To do so, it's necessary to believe that Brisket is Harry Reid or that I am some feminazi, environmental wacko. We're not.

    This is what has happened to the majority of the population in Russia. This is why Putin controls his country so well.

    Bannon/trump brought this to the US. Ideally, we can keep the 2+2=5 crowd from getting too large here in the US. Right now I guess it is maybe 25-35% of the population

  8. 16 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

    Well, we'll see what the IG report has to say about Sargeant Schultz's investigation, and his made up intent standard. And his willingness to grant immunity to key conspirators in exchange for nothing.

    Ok. It seems that you might be on board with the idea that it was/is appropriate for the two investigations to follow different paths.

    It seems that you don’t trust the outcome of the Hillary investigation. 

  9. 3 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

    I have no idea where you got that I think Hillary and Trump did the same things.  However, the process of investigating them has been vastly different, starting with the point that the FBI started the investigation of Hillary with a known crime. So far, all I see in the Trump investigation is 18 full-time prosecutors looking for a crime.

    First, Hillary was investigated and it was determined that no crime occurred. Referring to a “known crime” isn’t accurate.

    Second, mueller has made multiple indictments and obtained several guilty please.

    The two situations are completely different. One side had no crime. The other side has multiple crimes and is currently being investigated for a broad ranging conspiracy.

    We are talking about apples and oranges. Why wouldn’t the processes for investigating them be drastically different?

  10. 8 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

    It's not unusual for partisans on both sides to be laughable inconsistent depending on the circumstances. Just read anything Harry Reid or anyone on either side had to say about eliminating the filibuster.  What we haven't experienced until now is jaw-dropping inconsistency in the FBI and DOJ. That's why this report is important.   The contrast between how the FBI treated Hillary and her associates and how they are treating Trump and anyone associated with him is the main reason Trump's partisans are discounting anything Mueller does.  It's not that your team doesn't see the inconsistency. Your team just discounts it by rationalizing the end justifies the means if it you wind up  "getting Trump".  But the "means" here are more of a threat to the rule of law than anything Trump has done or could do.

    It seems from your view that both Hillary and Trump did the same things. It doesn’t matter that both were treated differently. It only matters what they did, and whether the Fbi/doj followed appropriate standards/processes.

    What if only one committed a crime?

  11. 3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Agreed.  And it's like zebra mussels -- once there's an infestation, you're stuck with it.  This is the new order now.  It will NOT get better.  It will only get worse.

    Things might get worse before things get better but I’ll point out again that things will get better.

    Mueller and the senate Intelligence Committee will do their thing. Dems will win the House and start putting the White House in check. Dems will then take the precidency and we can start implementing real fixes. 2020 is when things will start to get fixed IMo

  12. 1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

    No, no, see, those behaviors are WRONG.  We know this because when Hillary engaged in them, that effectively DISQUALIFIED her from holding the highest office in the land.

    The hell of it is, many of us AGREE with that assessment.

    What baffles us is that once Trump was elected, those same behaviors became a-ok, and no problem at all (well, I mean, they are "cause for concern,' but they're no longer disqualifying).  It's the jaw-dropping inconsistency that baffles anyone with two functioning brain hemispheres.

    This is possible by tribalism/identity politics. It doesn’t matter what is right/wrong or accurate/inaccurate or truth/lie or consistent/hypocritical. 

    This is 2x2=5 level shit.

    This is the result of propaganda.

    This is what the Russians perfected. Bannon/trump brought it into US politics.

  13. 16 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    No iron, tin foil. Oh I freely admit I have it in for her, and want to believe all the stories about her actually eating babies , but that's just gossip.  As for a lot of the rest of the stuff yeah some of it's true.

    1. Whitewater, yeah...

    2. Files from V. Fosters office were probably incriminating as hell, wonder why they disappeared ??? I don't think she had him Killed.

    3. Travelgate, more scamming and lying

    4.  Benghazzi was a failure and she played a complicit role in that failure and then tried too assign blame elsewhere.  

    5. Her server issue is the worst example of her blatant criminality. It was her shake down file for the Clinton foundation. A slush fund of pre presidential bribes for access after 2016.........  Comey, the tragic, doomed hero in the whole thing.

    6. Her cattle futures scam

    7.  Her numerous minutia filled tell all books of her life in politics. Funny how whenever she was questioned by congress it was always.. "I'm sorry I don't recall".  More smoke than criminality, other than probably perjuring herself multiple times.

    8.  Hell they stole whole suites of White House furniture.

    9.  Did she lose her law license, like her hubby did ?

    10.  I know there are more I'm forgetting, but all of those things are generally acknowledged as things she did or was involved with. well with un biased folks at least, not somebody like you.

    If you don’t mind, where do you get your news from? What media/websites do you use to stay informed?

  14. 1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

    Yeah, well, the problem is any time a Republican even hints at reform, the NRA pumps money into a primary to defeat that candidate, no matter how conservative he is on any other issue. The NRA is a protection racket and the Republican Party is too cowardly to do anything about it.

     

    I agree that the Republican Party seems to be completely captured by the nra and the gun industry. IMO, the reasons for this are dark money, campaign finance, education, and propaganda.

  15. 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    I'm not giving up.  I'm still playing as hard as I can, and fighting as hard as I can.

    But the scoreboard reads 66-3, and there's not much time left on the clock.  Barring a miracle that transcends any possibility we can even conceive of, we know how  this ends.  I can both fight AND call it like I see it.

    I’m more optimistic then you.

    At the federal level, we’ve got the senate intelligence committee, rosenstein, and mueller preparing to show the world who are bad apples and how this all occurred. Unfortunately this takes time.

    Fixing dark money and addressing media/socialmedia’s bias/propaganda will be a big undertaking, but doable with a change in leadership.

    We do need to clean up discourse on an individual level. We do need to point out us vs them identity politics when it is obvious. We do need to point out when logic/science are replaced with feelings. 

  16. 19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Everyone who does shitty things that jeopardize our national security should be called on the carpet and should face legal consequences if they do so.  That has always been true, and remains true.  If Hillary illegally used unsecured devices, she always should have faced appropriate consequences for that.  I've certainly never said otherwise.

    I would like consistent treatment.  Hell, I'd be happy with even 25% of the same amount of alarm being raised with respect to a POTUS -- not a cabinet member, but the actual POTUS -- using openly and shamelessly using an unsecure device.  But I won't get that.

    Because rules and norms don't matter.  Only teams.

    Ether be pissed about ALL of it, or STFU and be pissed about none of it.  Giving Trump passes for all of this bullshit....wait till Bernie Sanders or worse is in office.  And the precedent will have been set.

    Which is why I have repeatedly noted that we are irrevocably committed to destroying the Republic.  There are no norms, there are no rules, there are no laws.  Only teams.

    But we need those norms, rules, and laws. And we need to do away with the idea of team-only politics, tribalism, identity politics, and nationalism. There are hard steps we can take to change our direction. I wouldn’t give up

  17. 3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

    How thoughtful.  We are such an awesome society.

    I see it as more of the opposite. I see it as a result of shifting away from safety/freedom, I.e., the idea that going to school used to be a safe activity.

    There are kids that go to school in war stricken parts of the world that take measures such as these. IMO, the US shouldn’t have to be like those countries.

    I see it as this is an example/illustration of one of the costs associated with our gun violence problem.

  18. 2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

    This thread is about the appropriateness of the FBI investigation into Hillary's email issue, which was driven by Congress.  You don't think the context of what is considered normal/acceptable/uninvestigated etc. when it comes to the current President's communications is a logical extension of that discussion?

    Possibly, thpugh I thought the thread was about how the fbi may have mishandled portions of the investigation and potentially may have influenced the election. I don’t think it’s about whether the email server was good/bad or whether it should or shouldn’t have been investigated.

  19. 1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

    They absolutely are appropriate to use to justify. The concept is foundational to deductive reasoning 

    In some cases it could be used to justify but not in these.

    Russian response to accusations of human rights violations, “and you are all lynching negros.” 

    Left response to accusation that Hillary had an insecure server, “and Trump uses twitter on an insecure phone.”

    Right response to accusation that trump used twitter on an insecure phone, “and he wasn’t using twitter to make pay-for-play with the Clinton foundation.”

  20. 1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

    You need to be careful labeling all analogies and comparisons whataboutism 

     

    they are not always fallacious 

     

    Yes, I agree. I think in the cases of the last page of this thread they would be though.

    Analogies are great when used for clarification or explanation but not when used to distract or justify.

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...