(03-23-2021 02:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-23-2021 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-23-2021 10:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-23-2021 09:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-23-2021 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what our resident leftists here think about the border situation. I guess they approve of it, since silence is compliance. Same for the efforts to make the US a safe one party country.
I wonder what OO thinks about another dude going on a killing-spree with an AK. He must approve of it, since silence is compliance.
(ridiculous I know, but apparently your standard is that we "approve of" every recent news story that we haven't commented on.)
A moron with an AK isn't official state policy. Border control and reporter access is.
You voted for the people engaging in the latter. NOBODY voted to allow murder.
I have lots of confidence that i'm not speaking of you when I say this... but this is where someone from the extreme left usually says something like... if you aren't voting for the elimination of all guns, you're voting FOR murder.... which is neither true nor constructive.... and not even discussing a serious issue in good faith.
Has the AK been confirmed, or is that just supposition?
I must say I do oppose murder.
From one of the news reports:
"A law enforcement official briefed on the shooting told The Associated Press that the gunman used an AR-15 rifle, a lightweight semi-automatic rifle."
Is that the same as an AK? Tanq seems to know guns, maybe he can tell us.
Different styles, different calibers. AK is a 7.62 x 51; AR-15 is a .223/5.56.
AR-10 styled weapons are 7.62 x 39 --- a .308 caliber.
The issue is that anything labeled as an AR-xx should have modular part characteristics. So literally scores of manufacturers make the guns and parts widely known as a 'AR'. The only manufacturer that can actually call their firearm an AR-15 is Colt -- who bought the original developer ArmaLite (i.e. where the 'AR' designator comes from.
(03-23-2021 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-23-2021 02:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-23-2021 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-23-2021 10:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-23-2021 09:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what OO thinks about another dude going on a killing-spree with an AK. He must approve of it, since silence is compliance.
(ridiculous I know, but apparently your standard is that we "approve of" every recent news story that we haven't commented on.)
A moron with an AK isn't official state policy. Border control and reporter access is.
You voted for the people engaging in the latter. NOBODY voted to allow murder.
I have lots of confidence that i'm not speaking of you when I say this... but this is where someone from the extreme left usually says something like... if you aren't voting for the elimination of all guns, you're voting FOR murder.... which is neither true nor constructive.... and not even discussing a serious issue in good faith.
Has the AK been confirmed, or is that just supposition?
I must say I do oppose murder.
From one of the news reports:
"A law enforcement official briefed on the shooting told The Associated Press that the gunman used an AR-15 rifle, a lightweight semi-automatic rifle."
Is that the same as an AK? Tanq seems to know guns, maybe he can tell us.
Different styles, different calibers. AK is a 7.62 x 51; AR-15 is a .223/5.56.
AR-10 styled weapons are 7.62 x 39 --- a .308 caliber.
The issue is that anything labeled as an AR-xx should have modular part characteristics. So literally scores of manufacturers make the guns and parts widely known as a 'AR'. The only manufacturer that can actually call their firearm an AR-15 is Colt -- who bought the original developer ArmaLite (i.e. where the 'AR' designator comes from.
Thanks. My personal experience is with lower caliber hunting weapons - but they are still called guns.
Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa
Mr. Alissa was born in Syria, according to this Facebook page and a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation. He is a naturalized U.S. citizen, the law enforcement official said.
some peoplke jumped to conclusions
Among these users was Meena Harris, niece of Vice President Kamala Harris. Shortly after news of the Boulder shooting broke, Harris wrote in a now-deleted tweet, "The Atlanta shooting was not even a week ago. Violent white men are the greatest terrorist threat to our country."
(03-23-2021 03:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa
Mr. Alissa was born in Syria, according to this Facebook page and a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation. He is a naturalized U.S. citizen, the law enforcement official said.
some peoplke jumped to conclusions
Among these users was Meena Harris, niece of Vice President Kamala Harris. Shortly after news of the Boulder shooting broke, Harris wrote in a now-deleted tweet, "The Atlanta shooting was not even a week ago. Violent white men are the greatest terrorist threat to our country."
Funny that in her 'retraction', she notes (correctly) that most mass shooters are white men... but if someone says that most gang shootings etc are not (also correct) that's a racist comment.
(03-23-2021 12:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Sen Warren (D - Indian nation) and Rep. Always On Camera introduced the Green New Deal bill recently.
Get a load of this which is buried in the bill:
Quote:“The BUILD GREEN Infrastructure and Jobs Act will make the big federal investments necessary to transform our country’s transportation system, confront the racial and economic inequality embedded in our fossil fuel economy, and achieve the ambitious targets for 100% clean energy in America.”
"..... confront the racial and economic inequality embedded in our fossil fuel economy." Seriously? Neat prototypical racial/ socioeconomic carny hustle there.
And, there are people that buy this crap.
What exactly is "the racial and economic inequality embedded in our fossil fuel economy"? I need one of you Progressives to explain this to me. 93? Lad? Big? FBO?
My experience with drilling crews and pipeline crews is that they employ a lot of minorities. So I guess the plan is to put those people out of work. We have already seen this in action on the Keystone XL.
Never saw a racist gallon of gas, but if the Progressives have taught us anything, it is that they can see racism in anything.
The Identity Party
New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is alleging that shadowy political forces handpicked former news anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera to challenge her in last year’s primary because of her “ethnicity” as part of a “disgusting” attempt to confuse voters.
Ocasio-Cortez made the blistering claim in a wide-ranging interview this week, charging that “Wall Street” and other unspecified entities selected Caruso-Cabrera for the 2020 primary battle specifically because she’s “also a Latina, down to having a hyphenated last name.”
“It was just the most cynical, disgusting thing,” Ocasio-Cortez said in the interview published by the Democratic Socialists of America’s magazine. “They weaponized all the cynical powers of trying to get someone of my ethnicity, trying to even confuse people in terms of the name — Caruso-Cabrera versus Ocasio-Cortez.”
Oh dear, now the democrats think running a Latina against a Latina is racist. I wonder if AOC ever consider that they both were picked because of their ethnicity?
Gosh, that's the first time a Democrat has publicly claimed exclusive electoral entitlement to a particular ethnicity since ... Joe Biden did it last year.
The MSN story is also a wonderful example of slanted writing. Two easy examples:
Quote:Ocasio-Cortez’s commanding 2020 primary victory came even though Caruso-Cabrera, a former CNBC anchor, spent more than $2 million on her campaign, making it one of the most expensive races in the country when combined with the $6 million dished out by the congresswoman.
Obviously it was Caruso-Cabrera's spending that turned the race into "one of the most expensive." Evidently the reader is also supposed to be impressed that the $6 million media-saturated incumbent won easily "even though" her challenger spent $2 million. Truly a triumph of the underdog.
Quote:Caruso-Cabrera faced backlash from progressives for accepting campaign contributions from wealthy Wall Street executives, including the CEOs of Goldman Sachs and Blackstone. Ocasio-Cortez, who doesn’t take corporate donations...
Evidently donations by individuals to MCC are to be considered corporate donations, whereas donations by individuals to AOC are not.
The MSN story could have come straight from the Onion.
Now that the Democrats are seemingly perfecting the art of 'running away from the state to break a quorum' I heard a great new term to refer to the Texas state leg and senate elected variety --- fleebaggers.
I have to say with two chartered jets from Austin to DC, it is mightily impressive the lengths the Democrats will go to to avoid anti-vote fraud laws.
(07-12-2021 09:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I have to say with two chartered jets from Austin to DC, it is mightily impressive the lengths the Democrats will go to to avoid anti-vote fraud laws.
Interesting that they don't give a damn about the pollution of the planes.
Yellow Journalism is alive and well in the UK
Texas Democrats flee state to block Republican voting law
Republicans in the state are proposing some of the most restrictive voting laws in the US
"The bill in Texas would ban 24-hour polling places and expand the authority of partisan poll watchers."
This has been edited from last night when they (the BBC) also included drive through voting (?) and ballot drop boxes (?).
Sorry I should have copied the original article last night.
None of the would be prohibited procedures are allowed in the UK and of course no explanation of what "expand the authority of partisan poll watchers".
And to think the BBC licence fee is mandatory (for now)?
Considering the fawning accolades and adulation that the Texas Fleebaggers generate, I really never want to hear another gd peep about the temerity of Republican obstructionism.
If an organized 'fleeing from quorum' isnt the ultimate act of that, I dont know what would even come close.
And, personally, given the warcry of 'Jim Crow 2.0' regarding the Georgia law and the (yet to be because of the Fleebaggers) Texas law from the body of the Democratic party, I dont know how low that group can stoop to race bait. But yet, some continue to vote for this 'nothing but race and class bait' party, apparently by default.
It is the rhetoric of "Jim Crow 2.0" that lead me to question how these legal changes were racist.
I think the silence of our local Democrats tells us that we all know this to be a bunch of hooey, done strictly for political gain.
Odd that the Dems say Trump is the one insisting on repeating claims that are lies. I think that at least Trump believes what he is saying. The only Dems who believe this crap are the low level army ants.
To respond to your question, Tanq, I think they can - and have - and will - go much lower.
I saw this earlier: “[T]he mental gymnastics are amazing: Men are evil, unless they identify as women, in which case their rights supersede those of genetic females, who are bigots for wanting to go to the spa without seeing naked men, who are evil, unless they identify as women, in which case…These are not good people. These are not sane people. You don’t have to do what they demand, no matter how loudly they scream at you.”
The awful thing is that many of the predicates within the above are basic critical theory issues, and many are basic progressive causes when taken up in single.
Senate Democrats propose requiring women to register for military draft
I have a spin on this I think our progressive friends should have zero problem with, especially with their keenness on 'make up programs' without really wanting to call that 'discrimination.'
My proposal is that if this goes through, we exempt men for, say 12 years; that is since men have disproportionately and unfairly borne the cost of a previously sexist program for 40 years --- kind of making up for the systemic sexism and female privilege inherent in the program to this date.
(07-19-2021 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] Senate Democrats propose requiring women to register for military draft
I have a spin on this I think our progressive friends should have zero problem with, especially with their keenness on 'make up programs' without really wanting to call that 'discrimination.'
My proposal is that if this goes through, we exempt men for, say 12 years; that is since men have disproportionately and unfairly borne the cost of a previously sexist program for 40 years --- kind of making up for the systemic sexism and female privilege inherent in the program to this date.
I guess that would be akin to something like me proposing that 100% of the new coaching/front office hires in the NBA/NFL be minorities for the next 12 years to make up for previous imbalances? I will note that I have not and would not do that so your proposal is really apples to oranges.
(07-19-2021 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] Senate Democrats propose requiring women to register for military draft
I have a spin on this I think our progressive friends should have zero problem with, especially with their keenness on 'make up programs' without really wanting to call that 'discrimination.'
My proposal is that if this goes through, we exempt men for, say 12 years; that is since men have disproportionately and unfairly borne the cost of a previously sexist program for 40 years --- kind of making up for the systemic sexism and female privilege inherent in the program to this date.
Agree, except it should not have a limit on it. Affirmative Action, a parallel program, has no foreseeable end date.
I also agree with the Democrats that it is time to make women truly equal. Although the draft is symbolic for now, there may return a day when it is used, and if so, it should apply to all equally.
(07-19-2021 04:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2021 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] Senate Democrats propose requiring women to register for military draft
I have a spin on this I think our progressive friends should have zero problem with, especially with their keenness on 'make up programs' without really wanting to call that 'discrimination.'
My proposal is that if this goes through, we exempt men for, say 12 years; that is since men have disproportionately and unfairly borne the cost of a previously sexist program for 40 years --- kind of making up for the systemic sexism and female privilege inherent in the program to this date.
I guess that would be akin to something like me proposing that 100% of the new coaching/front office hires in the NBA/NFL be minorities for the next 12 years to make up for previous imbalances? I will note that I have not and would not do that so your proposal is really apples to oranges.
How about saying that all females need to register, but only 25% of men do. That would make it right on target with the set asides you apparently have a big jonesing to do across the board.
I mean, you are a stalwart for just that type of reservation program for pro sports, you should be jumping on mine like a jackrabbit.
The military draft always smacked of limited slavery to me, involuntary servitude but only for males. I still oppose a draft, but think that if there is one, it should cover everybody.
On a side note, whenever somebody makes the statement re: abortion rights that “it’s her body, she can do what she wants with it”, I think back to that time in 1965 when I wanted my body to be in Texas, and Uncle Sam wanted it to be in Viet Nam.