Karma Kramer
Banned
mckmas8808 said:
Did you not watch the video?
And everyone on GAF used to love her... wth?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
Did you not watch the video?
And everyone on GAF used to love her... wth?
Karma Kramer
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
So you disagree with both of the recent videos I posted of her?
Aaron Strife
Banned
I feel that the line should have been drawn when on Fox they had a relationship counselor who was talking about how Barack and Michelle enjoy fisting.Tamanon said:
Karma Kramer
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
No.
You are saying she is a hyperbolic blowhard, yet I haven't seen any legitimate counter points to the argument she is making in the two videos I posted.
The only point I have seen is "let's just wait and see" or "maddow is a joke har har har"
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
capslock said:
<3 Steele! :lol
I think the point is that he said he agreed with you fairly on in this argument he just doesn't agree with you calling out all of PoliGAF for also not agreeing with you.Karma Kramer said:
At this point you're arguing against the wrong person. I agree that I wish there was more rabble rabble about the whole thing but what are you going to do? We've been repeating ourselves now for like 3 pages, time to give it a rest and wait for the next opportunity.
So, uh, make up you two!
Karma Kramer
Banned
mAcOdIn said:
Its weird, I never thought Ghaleon and I would be at each other throats haha... You are correct though, he did agree with me earlier...
I do apologize for attacking you Ghaleon, I am taking out my frustration on you, more then I should.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Karma Kramer said:
I can't watch it because I'm at work. I could try on my phone though. What keywords should I use to watch the video?
And yeah many people on GAF love Rachel Maddow. Everytime something about gay blah blah blah (insert any current gay issue) comes up and Obama isn't 100% behind her feelings she goes crazy.
And she starts to act like obama isn't going to help her cause AT ALL!
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Rachel Maddow is level headed too.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
PantherLotus said:
Don't start this shit!
charlequin
Banned
PantherLotus said:
Given that the entire Republican party apparatus has spent forty years shaping the media and the popular perception in ways intended to facilitate this strategy, and that they use this strategy on every single issue where their position is fundamentally weak on its face: yes. Yes, that is the strategy.
Karma Kramer said:
Cable television is fucking bullshit. PoliGAF would be ten times better if everyone here stopped lapping at its filthy teats.
JayDubya said:
My examples in my last post were a little purposely inflated, but I'm really serious about the underlying questions:
- do you support CCPs because you believe society is better off with them existing, support them on a principle that you could see bending given certain sufficiently strong evidence that it's a bad idea in practice, or support them on a principle that you see as sufficiently important to defend no matter how much of a problem it creates in reality?
- Are there any kinds of deadly weapons besides guns that you feel should be permitted for private ownership and use?
My basic default position as an upscale Northeastern urbanite was ludicrously pro-gun control, but I've softened a lot on it over time -- certainly enough that I'd prefer stopping on a compromise position rather than continuing to fight the battle. But concealed weapons make me very nervous and it's extremely difficult for me to understand the argument for them.
I can't speak for Jay but I believe your question to be incorrect.charlequin said:
It's not "is society better off" but "are you better off?" I don't think anyone will argue that society as a whole, as a lump of statistical data will be safer with more guns in peoples hands, it's not possible. That said I think it's fair to say that a person who carries a gun *is* safer because s/he has 2 things. One is the will or determination to protect themselves the other is the means. Of course a gun owners survivability is not guaranteed in every situation but it is increased overall.
Someone's going to die either way, there's going to be shootings, with or without a gun ban, gun ownership gives the gun owner a higher chance of it not being them. Of course people who don't own guns are then less safe because, quite simply the more people that are better armed than you the more risk you're in.
Personally, I view a persons well being as an inherent right above all other rights and frankly I'm surprised that so many willingly give up that responsibility and hand it over so freely to the State. If a person freely gives up that right then what good is water quality, due process or anything else?
But anyways, in summary. The people with guns are safer than the people without but the people without guns are less safe the more people have guns. You can only raise the herds safety or the individuals but you can't have it both ways. I prefer the individuals rights because I think it's worse to force someone to give up their right to defend themselves against their will more than it is to say "hey you should also be defending yourself buddy," or something to that effect.
Edit: If I support guns it makes sense I wouldn't worry about blackjacks, swords, knives, or whatever either. So long as we're not getting into shoulder fired missile territory or some shit.
Oh, so THAT'S how "List" works. Good to know.
Well, Thatcher-esque scoffing at the notion of society aside, I don't even really like the idea of conceal carry permits, because I don't think you should need a permit.
I think individuals are better off being empowered to defend themselves from aggression, and I think people willing to commit those acts of aggression won't adhere to policies meant to restrict them anyway. To that end, yes, I think people are better off being allowed the means to defend themselves, and I'm generally not a fan of utilitarian statistician activity since it devolves quickly into people using their agenda to massage the same numbers to support contradictory conclusions. I'm much more deontological. So to answer your question, I guess I do think individuals are better off being able to defend themselves, I don't think of society as being much more than a bunch of individuals, and I think the principle here is exceedingly important.
I don't think people exploiting a right in order to do harm to others is grounds for removing the right from those who don't abuse it.
This is where the waters invariably get muddied. I believe in the use of weapons for self-defense. If there is no conceivable way to use the weapon in question for self-defense because it does that much collateral or lingering damage to tangential people, its use cannot be justified.
So people always do the "private nukes" joke. Hard to imagine that being a viable weapon for an individual's self-defense.
Note: you're always liable for the unjustified harm that you cause. So if one were to lob frag grenades at a mugger...
Ultimately, like a lot of things, it's on a continuum. I guess I'm pretty far to one extreme of that continuum, but there are those further than me.
I guess the problem here for me is partially that this notion is so alien to me and I can't understand why you'd be nervous.
charlequin said:
Well, Thatcher-esque scoffing at the notion of society aside, I don't even really like the idea of conceal carry permits, because I don't think you should need a permit.
I think individuals are better off being empowered to defend themselves from aggression, and I think people willing to commit those acts of aggression won't adhere to policies meant to restrict them anyway. To that end, yes, I think people are better off being allowed the means to defend themselves, and I'm generally not a fan of utilitarian statistician activity since it devolves quickly into people using their agenda to massage the same numbers to support contradictory conclusions. I'm much more deontological. So to answer your question, I guess I do think individuals are better off being able to defend themselves, I don't think of society as being much more than a bunch of individuals, and I think the principle here is exceedingly important.
I don't think people exploiting a right in order to do harm to others is grounds for removing the right from those who don't abuse it.
This is where the waters invariably get muddied. I believe in the use of weapons for self-defense. If there is no conceivable way to use the weapon in question for self-defense because it does that much collateral or lingering damage to tangential people, its use cannot be justified.
So people always do the "private nukes" joke. Hard to imagine that being a viable weapon for an individual's self-defense.
Note: you're always liable for the unjustified harm that you cause. So if one were to lob frag grenades at a mugger...
Ultimately, like a lot of things, it's on a continuum. I guess I'm pretty far to one extreme of that continuum, but there are those further than me.
I guess the problem here for me is partially that this notion is so alien to me and I can't understand why you'd be nervous.
charlequin
Banned
JayDubya said:
That raises a very tangential question for me: how do you feel about driver's licenses? :lol
Does this right to self-defense extend upwards in any way to organizations formed by groups of people?
I guess I can't really think of a weapon that (a) is deadly, (b) is easily concealable, (c) is relatively safe to use without causing accidental collateral damage, and (d) isn't a gun so I guess that answers that question.
Uh, guns are dangerous? I know people who have been killed in gun violence (including with legal weapons), I know people who have killed people in gun violence (a kid who used to play basketball in my neighborhood got life for murder), and I wouldn't really trust myself with a gun: the amount of rather dramatic responsibility involved in maintaining, storing, carrying, and using it safely is something I wouldn't want to take on.
Over time, people have convinced me that there are people who can be responsible with a gun, but that (calling back to my comment above) really just makes me think of it as a matter relatively equivalent to driving: something that should be legal but have a pretty significant regulatory and licensing structure attached to it.
Deus Ex Machina
Member
PHOTOS President at the Naval Academy
Midshipman graduate Christopher Nicolet, of Lakeside, Arizona, reacts after shaking hands with President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama hugs John Sidney McCain IV, son of Arizona Senator John McCain
Midshipman graduate Christopher Nicolet, of Lakeside, Arizona, reacts after shaking hands with President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama hugs John Sidney McCain IV, son of Arizona Senator John McCain
SouthernDragon
Member
The height of hilarity to see the troops being so damn enthusiastic.
WickedAngel
Banned
FlightOfHeaven said:
The joke is on them; they still have to be in the Navy.
Guybrush Threepwood
Banned
I know I'm super late with this, but Obama's indefinite detention speech was appalling.
And people here are actually defending him... no different than Bush supporters.
And people here are actually defending him... no different than Bush supporters.
speculawyer
Member
Apparently the GOP made a commercial comparing to Nancy Pelosi to Pussy Galore. :lol
All the articles about it have dead links. Anyone know where to find the video.
Pussy Galore? WTF? :lol
All the articles about it have dead links. Anyone know where to find the video.
Pussy Galore? WTF? :lol
speculawyer said:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/23/734671/-RNC-Ad-Compares-Nancy-Pelosi-to-Pussy-Galore
Watching it now.
speculawyer
Member
Meh . . . wasn't so bad. And she should be complimented to be compared to some attractive actors.besada said:
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, I could go along with withholding the pictures . . . but indefinite detention is so antithetical to a just democracy.Guybrush Threepwood said:
There has got to be some solution that is better than that . . . even if it is something like returning them to a home country that will have a kangaroo court trial. Perhaps they could say this is an ongoing war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and these are prisoners of war in an ongoing war? But indefinite detention w/o trial or even a charge against them is ridiculous.
speculawyer said:
Or cut them loose in Afghanistan and let them take their chances with the American Armed Forces. Either way, we begin to at least follow our own rules for a change. If they go back to terrorism, we're talking a handful of people added to the cause, while their detention not only makes a mockery of American "justice" but acts as an amazing recruiting tool for the very same cause.
No one wants to just cut these guys loose, but the cost of their celebrity in the middle-east is certainly more painful to bear than actually having them out in the field.
Karma Kramer
Banned
besada said:
Exactly... what Obama is doing may seem like a safer idea, it is not. He is just looking out for his ass right now. Pretty terrible.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Guybrush Threepwood said:
Where is this indefinite detention thing coming from? Obama never said that. What he said was that he would do everything in his power to come up with a legal solution to contend with people that couldn't be charged. He never, ever, said "indefinite detention."
People need to stop professing this as fact. It may have been implied but was never asserted, and more importantly, it was delineated with clear parameters for a legal solution. Enough of the bullshit.
PantherLotus said:
If you're holding people captive who "can't be charged" that's indefinite detention unless these "unchargeable" people are set free at some point without, you know, charging them. Because they can't be charged.
To me, if you can't charge someone you release them. That's true of any Democracy.
The entire point of charging someone after all, is to give a range of time for a sentence at which point you release them. Prior to charging someone a person is "indefinitely" held by definition. That doesn't mean infinite, it means they're being held for an indeterminable time. Because charges determine how long the government may (if they get a conviction) hold a person.
The Lamonster
Member
how in the fuck do they do that??? seriously
PantherLotus said:
Getting Congress to pass an unconstitutional law as cover doesn't change the basic fact that the administration is floating a plan to hold indefinitely people it cannot charge.
You either charge them and put them on trial, or you cut them loose. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors trying to make it seem like they don't have the same stance as the Bush administration. And every day he holds them, trying to find a politically palatable answer, is a day where he takes responsibility for violating the same laws Bush did.
charlequin
Banned
besada said:
Well... I dunno. I'm willing to give Obama a no harm, no foul on it once every illegally-held prisoner is free. If he holds them for an extra two years, and then cooks up some plan and frees them, and there's no policy by which new people are being imprisoned the same way -- I, personally, would say "okay, give it to him" on that, because ending the policy two years later than he could have is still so much better than continuing it indefinitely.
But, yes, he needs to not be doing this, and not saying he's gonna do this would be, like, a good first step, and he needs to be criticized until he says (and does) something different. There shouldn't be any reason that anyone is in there now who we don't have evidence to charge but still need to hold on to.
speculawyer
Member
Well, I think the point is that many said the troops would hate to have Obama as commander in chief. Those people underestimated the professionalism and loyalty of our armed forces.mj1108 said:
Anticitizen One
Banned
What kind of name is Pussy Galore anyway :lol
Deus Ex Machina
Member
PHOTOS Break Time
Stoney Mason
Banned
GrapeApes said:
To be fair there are a lot of rabid Anti-Obama military types. I have a marine nephew who is a bit brainwashed into that sort of mentality. The difference is unlike say Notre Dame, you aren't going to have crazies do crazy things in public to voice their displeasure.
- Status