Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330884 > unrolled thread

Re: OT: Conservative sexism

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 12:17 -0800
    Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 20:28 +0000
      Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 15:42 -0500
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-04 17:35 -0500
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 17:38 -0500
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-05 09:30 -0500
            Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-05 09:39 -0500
            Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 09:30 -0700
              Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 11:47 -0800
      Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 20:47 +0000
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 21:57 +0000
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-04 16:59 -0500
          Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:06 +0000
            Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 20:10 -0800
            Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:33 +0000
              Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 04:51 +0000
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 05:31 +0000
                  Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 21:41 -0800
                  Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 18:51 +0000
                    Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 12:18 -0700
                      Re: OT: Conservative sexism owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-05 19:24 +0000
                        Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-05 12:44 -0700
                      Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 12:32 -0800
                        Re: OT: Conservative sexism JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-05 15:19 -0600
                          Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 13:54 -0800
                            Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 16:38 -0700
                              Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 15:48 -0800
                                Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 19:52 -0700
                              Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-06 19:51 -0700
                                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-06 22:28 -0700
                                  Re: OT: Conservative sexism GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-11-07 12:45 -0700
                Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 21:36 -0800
        Re: OT: Conservative sexism Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:53 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#330884 — Re: OT: Conservative sexism

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 12:14:30 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> <http://www.alternet.org/node/1045174>
> 
> You can whine about the source - after all it is liberal no doubt - but the
> quotes are all pretty easy to verify.
> 
> And he is not some side show to the US conservative movement - he is one of
> the top two candidates they have for president.

Right... like the entire political machine hasn't turned into a sideshow. Seen the most recent Dem debate? I thought I was watching a rerun of that ol'  gem 'Hillary loves Bernie', it was actually embarrassing.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#330887

Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 12:14:30 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>> <http://www.alternet.org/node/1045174>
>> 
>> You can whine about the source - after all it is liberal no doubt - but the
>> quotes are all pretty easy to verify.
>> 
>> And he is not some side show to the US conservative movement - he is one of
>> the top two candidates they have for president.
> 
> Right... like the entire political machine hasn't turned into a sideshow. Seen the most recent Dem debate? I thought I was watching a rerun of that ol'  gem 'Hillary loves Bernie', it was actually embarrassing.
> 

Have you seen her recent ad where she lies about gun statistics by
including suicides as part of "killed by guns" thereby tripling the
number?  Of course bobble-heads in her audience just go right along
with it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330905

On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 13:32:49 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 11/4/15, 1:28 PM, in article sfhje8.a0fe@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 12:14:30 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>>>> <http://www.alternet.org/node/1045174>
>>>> 
>>>> You can whine about the source - after all it is liberal no doubt - but the
>>>> quotes are all pretty easy to verify.
>>>> 
>>>> And he is not some side show to the US conservative movement - he is one of
>>>> the top two candidates they have for president.
>>> 
>>> Right... like the entire political machine hasn't turned into a sideshow.
>>> Seen the most recent Dem debate? I thought I was watching a rerun of that ol'
>>> gem 'Hillary loves Bernie', it was actually embarrassing.
>> 
>> Have you seen her recent ad where she lies about gun statistics by
>> including suicides as part of "killed by guns" thereby tripling the
>> number?  Of course bobble-heads in her audience just go right along
>> with it.
> 
> By all means point a link to it.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/86_Firearm_Deaths_a_Day_in_U.S.%3B_60%25_are_Suicides/40181/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Hopefully you are next.



-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330937

On 2015-11-04 3:42 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 13:32:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> On 11/4/15, 1:28 PM, in article sfhje8.a0fe@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 12:14:30 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>>>>> <http://www.alternet.org/node/1045174>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can whine about the source - after all it is liberal no doubt - but the
>>>>> quotes are all pretty easy to verify.
>>>>>
>>>>> And he is not some side show to the US conservative movement - he is one of
>>>>> the top two candidates they have for president.
>>>>
>>>> Right... like the entire political machine hasn't turned into a sideshow.
>>>> Seen the most recent Dem debate? I thought I was watching a rerun of that ol'
>>>> gem 'Hillary loves Bernie', it was actually embarrassing.
>>>
>>> Have you seen her recent ad where she lies about gun statistics by
>>> including suicides as part of "killed by guns" thereby tripling the
>>> number?  Of course bobble-heads in her audience just go right along
>>> with it.
>>
>> By all means point a link to it.
> 
> http://www.blacklistednews.com/86_Firearm_Deaths_a_Day_in_U.S.%3B_60%25_are_Suicides/40181/0/38/38/Y/M.html
> 
> Hopefully you are next.

Snit went to a gun store once with the intention of buying a gun but
ended up having a debate with the store's owner instead. I hear that the
owner shot himself in the face with a shotgun soon thereafter.

-- 
Slimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330940

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:35:51 -0500, Slimer wrote:

> On 2015-11-04 3:42 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 13:32:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/4/15, 1:28 PM, in article sfhje8.a0fe@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 12:14:30 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> <http://www.alternet.org/node/1045174>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can whine about the source - after all it is liberal no doubt - but the
>>>>>> quotes are all pretty easy to verify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And he is not some side show to the US conservative movement - he is one of
>>>>>> the top two candidates they have for president.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right... like the entire political machine hasn't turned into a sideshow.
>>>>> Seen the most recent Dem debate? I thought I was watching a rerun of that ol'
>>>>> gem 'Hillary loves Bernie', it was actually embarrassing.
>>>>
>>>> Have you seen her recent ad where she lies about gun statistics by
>>>> including suicides as part of "killed by guns" thereby tripling the
>>>> number?  Of course bobble-heads in her audience just go right along
>>>> with it.
>>>
>>> By all means point a link to it.
>> 
>> http://www.blacklistednews.com/86_Firearm_Deaths_a_Day_in_U.S.%3B_60%25_are_Suicides/40181/0/38/38/Y/M.html
>> 
>> Hopefully you are next.
> 
> Snit went to a gun store once with the intention of buying a gun but
> ended up having a debate with the store's owner instead. I hear that the
> owner shot himself in the face with a shotgun soon thereafter.

:)
Well played!

-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331055

On 2015-11-04 10:54 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 3:35 PM, in article n1e140$qgk$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
>>>>> Have you seen her recent ad where she lies about gun statistics by
>>>>> including suicides as part of "killed by guns" thereby tripling the
>>>>> number?  Of course bobble-heads in her audience just go right along
>>>>> with it.
>>>>
>>>> By all means point a link to it.
>>>
>>> http://www.blacklistednews.com/86_Firearm_Deaths_a_Day_in_U.S.%3B_60%25_are_S
>>> uicides/40181/0/38/38/Y/M.html
>>>
>>> Hopefully you are next.
>>
>> Snit went to a gun store once with the intention of buying a gun but
>> ended up having a debate with the store's owner instead. I hear that the
>> owner shot himself in the face with a shotgun soon thereafter.
> 
> Would not have happened if he had gotten a background check before getting
> the store! :)

I'm sure that the stores around Prescott have pictures of you telling
the employees to only provide you with one-word answers for fear of
being thrust into a never-ending debate.

-- 
Slimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331060

On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 09:30:53 -0500, Slimer wrote:

> On 2015-11-04 10:54 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 11/4/15, 3:35 PM, in article n1e140$qgk$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer"
>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> Have you seen her recent ad where she lies about gun statistics by
>>>>>> including suicides as part of "killed by guns" thereby tripling the
>>>>>> number?  Of course bobble-heads in her audience just go right along
>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> By all means point a link to it.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.blacklistednews.com/86_Firearm_Deaths_a_Day_in_U.S.%3B_60%25_are_S
>>>> uicides/40181/0/38/38/Y/M.html
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully you are next.
>>>
>>> Snit went to a gun store once with the intention of buying a gun but
>>> ended up having a debate with the store's owner instead. I hear that the
>>> owner shot himself in the face with a shotgun soon thereafter.
>> 
>> Would not have happened if he had gotten a background check before getting
>> the store! :)
> 
> I'm sure that the stores around Prescott have pictures of you telling
> the employees to only provide you with one-word answers for fear of
> being thrust into a never-ending debate.

They probably have his picture by the register and run for the stockroom
when he comes into the store.

Except for Walmart of course where Jeremy is his best friend :)

-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331073

On 11/5/15, 7:30 AM, in article n1fp2l$81f$2@dont-email.me, "Slimer"
<.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> On 2015-11-04 10:54 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 11/4/15, 3:35 PM, in article n1e140$qgk$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer"
>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> Have you seen her recent ad where she lies about gun statistics by
>>>>>> including suicides as part of "killed by guns" thereby tripling the
>>>>>> number?  Of course bobble-heads in her audience just go right along
>>>>>> with it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> By all means point a link to it.
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.blacklistednews.com/86_Firearm_Deaths_a_Day_in_U.S.%3B_60%25_are
>>>> _S
>>>> uicides/40181/0/38/38/Y/M.html
>>>> 
>>>> Hopefully you are next.
>>> 
>>> Snit went to a gun store once with the intention of buying a gun but
>>> ended up having a debate with the store's owner instead. I hear that the
>>> owner shot himself in the face with a shotgun soon thereafter.
>> 
>> Would not have happened if he had gotten a background check before getting
>> the store! :)
> 
> I'm sure that the stores around Prescott have pictures of you telling
> the employees to only provide you with one-word answers for fear of
> being thrust into a never-ending debate.

I actually have people asking me to join their debates on Facebook and in
person - on Facebook I have both liberal and conservative friends do this
when they feel they are backed in a corner and need help. In college I was
asked to be a guest speaker in a logic class which was focused on
arguments... the teacher and I disagreed on many things and had great
debates. His next semester was boring so he asked me to come back and liven
things up. I had another class at the same time so I could not... but would
have otherwise.

And as I said, I was asked by a college to teach an ethics class and
encourage good debates with logic and support and evidence being a primary
focus. It was a very fun class, and we all learned from it.

So I do enjoy a good debate, but I am a stickler for support and evidence
and logic and backing your claims. In here I tend to let people pull things
in all sorts of directions - in my class we had more of a focus but I still
allowed that perhaps more than I should have, but not as much as happens
here.

Look at my debate with Owl: it started with an accusation that Clinton lied
in a commercial. I showed where the accusation was faulty. Instead of him
speaking of that he went off onto a bunch of other topics: his view of the
second amendment, what sex the people are who used guns (?!?!?), how
effective he thinks mental health checks are, and who knows what else.

Comes down to he realizes the initial point was wrong: Clinton did not lie,
so he is running to change the topic.

It is an interesting thing to watch happen over and over in COLA and CSMA.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331108

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 9:30:10 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 11/5/15, 7:30 AM, in article n1fp2l$81f$2@dont-email.me, "Slimer"
> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> 
> > On 2015-11-04 10:54 PM, Snit wrote:
> >> On 11/4/15, 3:35 PM, in article n1e140$qgk$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer"
> >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> >> 
> >>>>>> Have you seen her recent ad where she lies about gun statistics by
> >>>>>> including suicides as part of "killed by guns" thereby tripling the
> >>>>>> number?  Of course bobble-heads in her audience just go right along
> >>>>>> with it.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> By all means point a link to it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> http://www.blacklistednews.com/86_Firearm_Deaths_a_Day_in_U.S.%3B_60%25_are
> >>>> _S
> >>>> uicides/40181/0/38/38/Y/M.html
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hopefully you are next.
> >>> 
> >>> Snit went to a gun store once with the intention of buying a gun but
> >>> ended up having a debate with the store's owner instead. I hear that the
> >>> owner shot himself in the face with a shotgun soon thereafter.
> >> 
> >> Would not have happened if he had gotten a background check before getting
> >> the store! :)
> > 
> > I'm sure that the stores around Prescott have pictures of you telling
> > the employees to only provide you with one-word answers for fear of
> > being thrust into a never-ending debate.
> 
> I actually have people asking me to join their debates on Facebook and in
> person - on Facebook I have both liberal and conservative friends do this
> when they feel they are backed in a corner and need help. In college I was
> asked to be a guest speaker in a logic class which was focused on
> arguments... the teacher and I disagreed on many things and had great
> debates. His next semester was boring so he asked me to come back and liven
> things up. I had another class at the same time so I could not... but would
> have otherwise.
> 
> And as I said, I was asked by a college to teach an ethics class and
> encourage good debates with logic and support and evidence being a primary
> focus. It was a very fun class, and we all learned from it.
> 
> So I do enjoy a good debate, but I am a stickler for support and evidence
> and logic and backing your claims. In here I tend to let people pull things
> in all sorts of directions - in my class we had more of a focus but I still
> allowed that perhaps more than I should have, but not as much as happens
> here.
> 
> Look at my debate with Owl:

LOL! What makes you believe he hasn't seen that farce?

>  it started with an accusation that Clinton lied
> in a commercial. 

... about gun control and her topic was "gun violence". One prescription she suggests is more "comprehensive background checks", as is also noted on her site. In the video she is being purposefully misleading by adding suicide rates to the stats to inflate them without mentioning that is what she did to get those inflated numbers. She did the exact same thing on her site on the page I pointed to earlier... and it's still there for anyone that cares to look. Notice that the URL says "gun-violence-prevention", Mr. Ethics?

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/

Do a search for the word "suicide" on that page, let me know what you find... and at least *try* to stop lying.

> I showed where the accusation was faulty. Instead of him
> speaking of that he went off onto a bunch of other topics: his view of the
> second amendment, what sex the people are who used guns (?!?!?), how
> effective he thinks mental health checks are, and who knows what else.
> 
> Comes down to he realizes the initial point was wrong: Clinton did not lie,
> so he is running to change the topic.

Nah... you're the one who did the running and you tried, unsuccessfully, to change the topic away from "gun violence", Mr. Ethics. This is just another example of how you'll completely twist anything and everything to 'support' your delusion that you're 'The Great Debater'. In reality you're just a pathologically lying nitwit who obviously doesn't know when to stop.

> It is an interesting thing to watch happen over and over in COLA and CSMA.

Want to make it more "interesting"? Invite some of these people you mentioned above into COLA (for the record, no, I don't believe you're telling the truth about all of that) so they can watch what happens to you over and over... and to see your version of 'ethics' in action ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330906

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 1:28 PM, in article sfhje8.a0fe@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 12:14:30 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>>>> <http://www.alternet.org/node/1045174>
>>>> 
>>>> You can whine about the source - after all it is liberal no doubt - but the
>>>> quotes are all pretty easy to verify.
>>>> 
>>>> And he is not some side show to the US conservative movement - he is one of
>>>> the top two candidates they have for president.
>>> 
>>> Right... like the entire political machine hasn't turned into a sideshow.
>>> Seen the most recent Dem debate? I thought I was watching a rerun of that ol'
>>> gem 'Hillary loves Bernie', it was actually embarrassing.
>> 
>> Have you seen her recent ad where she lies about gun statistics by
>> including suicides as part of "killed by guns" thereby tripling the
>> number?  Of course bobble-heads in her audience just go right along
>> with it.
> 
> By all means point a link to it. Have not seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7Dn-4LDUw4
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/03/hillary-clintons-gun-control-ad-swells-gun-violence-number-66-percent-including-suicides/

> But if you kill yourself
> with a gun you have been killed with a gun... so not sure what your point is
> in saying that should not be counted in a death-by-gun statistic.
>

Because the suicides were not something that just happened to the persons.
They chose to kill themselves.  They were not victims of violence.

<quote>
For instance, in 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) reported 11,208 firearm-related homicides in the United States. An
additional 505 accidental firearm-related deaths occurred in the US???a
figure that pales in comparison to the 38,851 deaths by accidental
poisoning or the 30,208 deaths caused by falls. So Clinton and gun
control proponents who think like her increase these figures by adding
in suicides. In this way, 11,713 firearm-related deaths???homicides and
accidental deaths???quickly become 32,888 ???gun violence??? deaths in
2013 and an impetus for gun control.
</quote>
 
> Now we can argue the value of such a statistic at all, but from how YOU
> present it, it sounds as if she is being honest. She might use it in a
> dishonest way, though. Would not surprise me. Clinton is not an honest
> person by a long shot - and I do not mean just the normal level of lying
> that pretty much all people do, or even the higher level that politicians
> do, but even more than that. Maybe not to the same level as the current top
> Republicans, but still impossible to defend.
> 

What "top Republican" lies are you talking about?
 
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330922

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 1:47 PM, in article sfh49af.ki@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/15, 1:28 PM, in article sfhje8.a0fe@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 12:14:30 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> <http://www.alternet.org/node/1045174>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You can whine about the source - after all it is liberal no doubt - but
>>>>>> the quotes are all pretty easy to verify.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And he is not some side show to the US conservative movement - he is one
>>>>>> of the top two candidates they have for president.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Right... like the entire political machine hasn't turned into a sideshow.
>>>>> Seen the most recent Dem debate? I thought I was watching a rerun of that
>>>>> ol' gem 'Hillary loves Bernie', it was actually embarrassing.
>>>> 
>>>> Have you seen her recent ad where she lies about gun statistics by
>>>> including suicides as part of "killed by guns" thereby tripling the
>>>> number?  Of course bobble-heads in her audience just go right along
>>>> with it.
>>> 
>>> By all means point a link to it. Have not seen it.
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7Dn-4LDUw4
>> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/03/hillary-clintons-gun-contro
>> l-ad-swells-gun-violence-number-66-percent-including-suicides/
> 
> Thank you. That shows the context: universal background checks. Now, of
> course, these would not stop all gun related suicides, but it is clearly
> tied to it. So including the suicides is not in any way dishonest.
> 
>>> But if you kill yourself with a gun you have been killed with a gun... so not
>>> sure what your point is in saying that should not be counted in a
>>> death-by-gun statistic.
>> 
>> Because the suicides were not something that just happened to the persons.
>> They chose to kill themselves.  They were not victims of violence.
> 
> You provided the context: universal background checks. And suicide gun
> deaths are very much related to that.
> 

How is a background check going to detect a suicide in advance?  Have
these people committed suicide in the past?

> Now if she implied or said these checks would end ALL such deaths that would
> be a lie, but she did no such thing.
> 
>> <quote>
>> For instance, in 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
>> (CDC) reported 11,208 firearm-related homicides in the United States. An
>> additional 505 accidental firearm-related deaths occurred in the US???a
>> figure that pales in comparison to the 38,851 deaths by accidental
>> poisoning or the 30,208 deaths caused by falls. So Clinton and gun
>> control proponents who think like her increase these figures by adding
>> in suicides. In this way, 11,713 firearm-related deaths???homicides and
>> accidental deaths???quickly become 32,888 ???gun violence??? deaths in
>> 2013 and an impetus for gun control.
>> </quote>
> 
> She is talking about background checks. For that suicide is very much a part
> of it.
>  

Not it's not.

>>> Now we can argue the value of such a statistic at all, but from how YOU
>>> present it, it sounds as if she is being honest. She might use it in a
>>> dishonest way, though. Would not surprise me. Clinton is not an honest
>>> person by a long shot - and I do not mean just the normal level of lying
>>> that pretty much all people do, or even the higher level that politicians
>>> do, but even more than that. Maybe not to the same level as the current top
>>> Republicans, but still impossible to defend.
>> 
>> What "top Republican" lies are you talking about?
> 
> Here is a sampling of Trumps:
> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/>
> Combining the top / bottom 3 we get
> 15 (25%)    True or mostly so
> 46 (75%)    False or mostly so
> 
> And Carson's:
> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/>
> Combining the top / bottom 3 we get
>  3 (18%)    True or mostly so
> 14 (82%)    False or mostly so
> 
> Now Clinton's ratings:
> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/>
> 94 (71%)    True or mostly so
> 39 (29%)    False or mostly so
> 
> And Sanders:
> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/>
> 25 (74%)    True or mostly so
>  9 (26%)    False or mostly so
> 
> And Obama's are much the same.
> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/>
> 
> Comes down to Republicans tend to be a LOT less truthful / accurate.
> 
> 

So you have no trustworthy source.
http://www.politifactbias.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#330923

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 21:57:17 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 11/4/15, 1:47 PM, in article sfh49af.ki@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/15, 1:28 PM, in article sfhje8.a0fe@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 12:14:30 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> <http://www.alternet.org/node/1045174>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You can whine about the source - after all it is liberal no doubt - but
>>>>>>> the quotes are all pretty easy to verify.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And he is not some side show to the US conservative movement - he is one
>>>>>>> of the top two candidates they have for president.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Right... like the entire political machine hasn't turned into a sideshow.
>>>>>> Seen the most recent Dem debate? I thought I was watching a rerun of that
>>>>>> ol' gem 'Hillary loves Bernie', it was actually embarrassing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Have you seen her recent ad where she lies about gun statistics by
>>>>> including suicides as part of "killed by guns" thereby tripling the
>>>>> number?  Of course bobble-heads in her audience just go right along
>>>>> with it.
>>>> 
>>>> By all means point a link to it. Have not seen it.
>>> 
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7Dn-4LDUw4
>>> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/03/hillary-clintons-gun-contro
>>> l-ad-swells-gun-violence-number-66-percent-including-suicides/
>> 
>> Thank you. That shows the context: universal background checks. Now, of
>> course, these would not stop all gun related suicides, but it is clearly
>> tied to it. So including the suicides is not in any way dishonest.
>> 
>>>> But if you kill yourself with a gun you have been killed with a gun... so not
>>>> sure what your point is in saying that should not be counted in a
>>>> death-by-gun statistic.
>>> 
>>> Because the suicides were not something that just happened to the persons.
>>> They chose to kill themselves.  They were not victims of violence.
>> 
>> You provided the context: universal background checks. And suicide gun
>> deaths are very much related to that.
>> 
> 
> How is a background check going to detect a suicide in advance?  Have
> these people committed suicide in the past?
> 
>> Now if she implied or said these checks would end ALL such deaths that would
>> be a lie, but she did no such thing.
>> 
>>> <quote>
>>> For instance, in 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
>>> (CDC) reported 11,208 firearm-related homicides in the United States. An
>>> additional 505 accidental firearm-related deaths occurred in the US???a
>>> figure that pales in comparison to the 38,851 deaths by accidental
>>> poisoning or the 30,208 deaths caused by falls. So Clinton and gun
>>> control proponents who think like her increase these figures by adding
>>> in suicides. In this way, 11,713 firearm-related deaths???homicides and
>>> accidental deaths???quickly become 32,888 ???gun violence??? deaths in
>>> 2013 and an impetus for gun control.
>>> </quote>
>> 
>> She is talking about background checks. For that suicide is very much a part
>> of it.
>>  
> 
> Not it's not.
> 
>>>> Now we can argue the value of such a statistic at all, but from how YOU
>>>> present it, it sounds as if she is being honest. She might use it in a
>>>> dishonest way, though. Would not surprise me. Clinton is not an honest
>>>> person by a long shot - and I do not mean just the normal level of lying
>>>> that pretty much all people do, or even the higher level that politicians
>>>> do, but even more than that. Maybe not to the same level as the current top
>>>> Republicans, but still impossible to defend.
>>> 
>>> What "top Republican" lies are you talking about?
>> 
>> Here is a sampling of Trumps:
>> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/>
>> Combining the top / bottom 3 we get
>> 15 (25%)    True or mostly so
>> 46 (75%)    False or mostly so
>> 
>> And Carson's:
>> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/>
>> Combining the top / bottom 3 we get
>>  3 (18%)    True or mostly so
>> 14 (82%)    False or mostly so
>> 
>> Now Clinton's ratings:
>> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/>
>> 94 (71%)    True or mostly so
>> 39 (29%)    False or mostly so
>> 
>> And Sanders:
>> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/>
>> 25 (74%)    True or mostly so
>>  9 (26%)    False or mostly so
>> 
>> And Obama's are much the same.
>> <http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/>
>> 
>> Comes down to Republicans tend to be a LOT less truthful / accurate.
>> 
>> 
> 
> So you have no trustworthy source.
> http://www.politifactbias.com/

What do you expect from a left wanker?
The truth?

-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331016

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 2:57 PM, in article shgnmcu93.3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> ..
>>> Thank you. That shows the context: universal background checks. Now, of
>>> course, these would not stop all gun related suicides, but it is clearly
>>> tied to it. So including the suicides is not in any way dishonest.
>>> 
>>>>> But if you kill yourself with a gun you have been killed with a gun... so
>>>>> not
>>>>> sure what your point is in saying that should not be counted in a
>>>>> death-by-gun statistic.
>>>> 
>>>> Because the suicides were not something that just happened to the persons.
>>>> They chose to kill themselves.  They were not victims of violence.
>>> 
>>> You provided the context: universal background checks. And suicide gun
>>> deaths are very much related to that.
>> 
>> How is a background check going to detect a suicide in advance?  Have
>> these people committed suicide in the past?
> 
> Their mental health records are tied to background checks.
> 

So?  How is that going to detect a suicide in advance?
And what if it's a woman?  Doesn't she have the right to do as
she pleases with her own body anyway?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331017

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:07:02 PM UTC-7, owl wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > On 11/4/15, 2:57 PM, in article shgnmcu93.3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > ..
> >>> Thank you. That shows the context: universal background checks. Now, of
> >>> course, these would not stop all gun related suicides, but it is clearly
> >>> tied to it. So including the suicides is not in any way dishonest.
> >>> 
> >>>>> But if you kill yourself with a gun you have been killed with a gun... so
> >>>>> not
> >>>>> sure what your point is in saying that should not be counted in a
> >>>>> death-by-gun statistic.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Because the suicides were not something that just happened to the persons.
> >>>> They chose to kill themselves.  They were not victims of violence.
> >>> 
> >>> You provided the context: universal background checks. And suicide gun
> >>> deaths are very much related to that.
> >> 
> >> How is a background check going to detect a suicide in advance?  Have
> >> these people committed suicide in the past?
> > 
> > Their mental health records are tied to background checks.
> > 
> 
> So?  How is that going to detect a suicide in advance?
> And what if it's a woman?  Doesn't she have the right to do as
> she pleases with her own body anyway?

And kill two birds with one stone? Pun intended ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331018

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 9:06 PM, in article sfhejd9.3a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/15, 2:57 PM, in article shgnmcu93.3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ..
>>>>> Thank you. That shows the context: universal background checks. Now, of
>>>>> course, these would not stop all gun related suicides, but it is clearly
>>>>> tied to it. So including the suicides is not in any way dishonest.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But if you kill yourself with a gun you have been killed with a gun... so
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> sure what your point is in saying that should not be counted in a
>>>>>>> death-by-gun statistic.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Because the suicides were not something that just happened to the persons.
>>>>>> They chose to kill themselves.  They were not victims of violence.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You provided the context: universal background checks. And suicide gun
>>>>> deaths are very much related to that.
>>>> 
>>>> How is a background check going to detect a suicide in advance?  Have
>>>> these people committed suicide in the past?
>>> 
>>> Their mental health records are tied to background checks.
>> 
>> So?  How is that going to detect a suicide in advance?
> 
> Mental health check. Not perfect... but if there is a history of mental
> health disorders that should be taken into consideration. As I showed you
> with a link you snipped.
> 

Nothing is going to prevent said woman from jumping off a bridge or
slitting her wrists.  Why should access to a gun have any bearing?
If a woman's "mental health history" is not so terrible that it
keeps her from walking the streets, then she should not be deprived
of her Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


>> And what if it's a woman?
> 
> The sex of the person is not relevant in any way.
> 

Why did you snip the question of a woman's right to do as she pleases
with her own body?  Do you fear facing the hypocrisy you spout?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331019

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 9:33 PM, in article srioe9.mbjh83@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>>>> How is a background check going to detect a suicide in advance?  Have
>>>>>> these people committed suicide in the past?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Their mental health records are tied to background checks.
>>>> 
>>>> So?  How is that going to detect a suicide in advance?
>>> 
>>> Mental health check. Not perfect... but if there is a history of mental
>>> health disorders that should be taken into consideration. As I showed you
>>> with a link you snipped.
>> 
>> Nothing is going to prevent said woman from jumping off a bridge or
>> slitting her wrists.
> 
> Irrelevant and off topic.
> 

If a woman's chosen method of suicide is irrelevant and off-topic, then
why are you linking it with a gun purchase?


>> Why should access to a gun have any bearing?
> 
> For the obvious reasons... people kill themselves with guns often and it is
> quick and easy. 
> 

There are many quick and easy ways of committing suicide.  No reason
to burden society with shackles because of the potential behavior of
a few goths and emos.


>> If a woman's "mental health history" is not so terrible that it
>> keeps her from walking the streets, then she should not be deprived
>> of her Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Again: off topic. And also you are assuming your view of the second
> amendment is the correct one... with no evidence. Do you have ANY?
> 

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


>>>> And what if it's a woman?
>>> 
>>> The sex of the person is not relevant in any way.
>> 
>> Why did you snip the question of a woman's right to do as she pleases
>> with her own body?  Do you fear facing the hypocrisy you spout?
> 
> I am trying - and failing - to keep you on topic. The sex of the person is
> not relevant in any way.
> 

Does a human have the right to do as it pleases with its own body?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331022

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 9:51 PM, in article fhgmvkf94.gjie@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/4/15, 9:33 PM, in article srioe9.mbjh83@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 

...
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Why did you snip the question of a woman's right to do as she pleases
>>>> with her own body?  Do you fear facing the hypocrisy you spout?
>>> 
>>> I am trying - and failing - to keep you on topic. The sex of the person is
>>> not relevant in any way.
>>> 
>> 
>> Does a human have the right to do as it pleases with its own body?
>> 
> The accusation was Clinton lied by speaking of gun deaths and including
> suicides... but as noted, in the context she was completely honest.
> 

So you fear answering the question.  I guess your view is that a human's
right to do as it pleases with its own body only applies if that human
is female and what it wants to do with its own body is kill the baby
inside it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331024

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 10:31:59 PM UTC-7, owl wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > On 11/4/15, 9:51 PM, in article fhgmvkf94.gjie@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> On 11/4/15, 9:33 PM, in article srioe9.mbjh83@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >>> 
> 
> ...
> >> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Why did you snip the question of a woman's right to do as she pleases
> >>>> with her own body?  Do you fear facing the hypocrisy you spout?
> >>> 
> >>> I am trying - and failing - to keep you on topic. The sex of the person is
> >>> not relevant in any way.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Does a human have the right to do as it pleases with its own body?
> >> 
> > The accusation was Clinton lied by speaking of gun deaths and including
> > suicides... but as noted, in the context she was completely honest.
> > 
> 
> So you fear answering the question. 

Of course he does, anyone can see he just couched the thing dishonestly. The reality is: 

The accusation is Clinton is purposefully misleading by speaking of "gun violence" while including stats for suicides.

> I guess your view is that a human's
> right to do as it pleases with its own body only applies if that human
> is female and what it wants to do with its own body is kill the baby
> inside it.

In a not so "quick and easy" fashion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331095

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/15, 10:31 PM, in article shgmvkxi03.ap@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> ... 
>>> The accusation was Clinton lied by speaking of gun deaths and including
>>> suicides... but as noted, in the context she was completely honest.
>>> 
>> 
>> So you fear answering the question.
> 
> Nope. I am keeping the focus where it started. There was an accusation that
> Clinton lied in a commercial. I showed the accusation had no basis.
> 

No you didn't.

> THAT is still on the table, though. Are you willing to admit the accusation
> had no merit are or are you going to keep going off on as many side issues
> as you can think of to avoid the actual topic.
> 

What side issues?

> No need to answer: below you make an off topic idiotic "guess" about my
> views to avoid speaking of how the accusation against Clinton was crap.
> 

Well, we *have* to guess, since you refuse to answer. 

>> I guess your view is that a human's
>> right to do as it pleases with its own body only applies if that human
>> is female and what it wants to do with its own body is kill the baby
>> inside it.
> 

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#331102

On 11/5/15, 11:51 AM, in article sehgu0of.a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 11/4/15, 10:31 PM, in article shgmvkxi03.ap@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> ... 
>>>> The accusation was Clinton lied by speaking of gun deaths and including
>>>> suicides... but as noted, in the context she was completely honest.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> So you fear answering the question.
>> 
>> Nope. I am keeping the focus where it started. There was an accusation that
>> Clinton lied in a commercial. I showed the accusation had no basis.
> 
> No you didn't.

Sure I did. The claim was she inflated gun death numbers by including
suicides and I explained why those numbers are relevant and SHOULD be
included. Her focus was background checks and people who are known to be
heavily depressed / suicidal could very well be flagged by such checks.

You might disagree with her policy. Fine. But she did not lie. That
accusation against her was false.

... 



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web