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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#331104

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 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.

No you didn't.

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

#331107

On 11/5/15, 12:24 PM, in article sheuaaf0.pafe@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> No you didn't.
> 
And if you believed that you would not have snipped the discussion of where
I talk about how I did so. Comes down to it is now absolutely clear even you
know the accusation made against Clinton was false: her use of well
respected stats was not in any way dishonest or even deceptive and you are
simply going to avoid it with meta-debates, side issues, etc.

Once again you are not being honest... even as you whine about Clinton being
dishonest in a way you cannot show.


-- 
* 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]

#331119

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:19:07 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> 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 

In a discussion about "gun violence". While she'd be technically correct if you confine the definition of the word "violence", she knows full well that the term "gun violence" is  politically supercharged and it creates the vision of people being senselessly murdered. 

> and I explained why those numbers are relevant and SHOULD be
> included.

If they SHOULD be included, if it's such a concern, why not talk more about suicide?

> Her focus was background checks

"Wrong", her position isn't just background checks. Go to the site that the video recommends, she's talking about more than just background checks. Instead of pretending you're all "educated" about what her plan is, go read the text on that page and watch the sanctioned video from her site:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=50&v=X-D3_35Jbaw

> and people who are known to be
> heavily depressed / suicidal could very well be flagged by such checks.

So why is the word "suicide" also absent on the text in that page on her site? If she wants people to know how concerned she is with that topic, as well, why leave it out if you going to include the numbers for it, numbers that comprise ~2/3 of the stat she cited? Maybe not everyone will watch her video, right? 

Speaking of that, I'll again suggest that you do watch her video. You'll then see, very quickly, about 1-2 seconds, that she mentions "sometimes they kill themselves" (not stipulating that it's by suicide or accident). The remainder of the narrative is about everything other than that. Why wasn't something closer to 2/3 of the time of the video devoted to suicide (or accidental gun death) if it's such a grave concern?  You spent more time on it writing this sentence than she has in the video and in the text on her page. 

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

At the least, I call it misleading, which some might interpret as a lie.

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

#331138

On 2015-11-05, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:19:07 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>> 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 
>
> In a discussion about "gun violence". While she'd be technically correct if 
> you confine the definition of the word "violence", she knows full well that 
> the term "gun violence" is  politically supercharged and it creates the 
> vision of people being senselessly murdered. 

    This is simply a problem with the Democrat position on gun control. You 
are not likely to find a Democrat that won't spin this subject in this way.

    There's probably a Republican equivalent but I can't think of it at the
moment. Doesn't mean there isn't one though. I would not use this as an example
of the accusation "Clinton lied".

[deletia]

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

#331143

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 2:30:12 PM UTC-7, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2015-11-05, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:19:07 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> >> 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 
> >
> > In a discussion about "gun violence". While she'd be technically correct if 
> > you confine the definition of the word "violence", she knows full well that 
> > the term "gun violence" is  politically supercharged and it creates the 
> > vision of people being senselessly murdered. 
> 
>     This is simply a problem with the Democrat position on gun control. You 
> are not likely to find a Democrat that won't spin this subject in this way.

Bull, I personally know plenty that don't. Why doesn't Clinton feel that the ~11,000 gun deaths are enough to make her argument? Why the need to spin it when you risk losing your credibility during a campaign? This makes no sense to me.

>     There's probably a Republican equivalent but I can't think of it at the
> moment. Doesn't mean there isn't one though. I would not use this as an example
> of the accusation "Clinton lied".

Which is why I call it misleading... and it is.

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

#331395

On 11/05/15 14:54, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 2:30:12 PM UTC-7, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2015-11-05, Steve Carroll<fretwizzer@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:19:07 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> In a discussion about "gun violence". While she'd be technically correct if
>>> you confine the definition of the word "violence", she knows full well that
>>> the term "gun violence" is  politically supercharged and it creates the
>>> vision of people being senselessly murdered.
>>
>>      This is simply a problem with the Democrat position on gun control. You
>> are not likely to find a Democrat that won't spin this subject in this way.
>
> Bull, I personally know plenty that don't. Why doesn't Clinton feel that the ~11,000 gun deaths are enough to make her argument? Why the need to spin it when you risk losing your credibility during a campaign? This makes no sense to me.
>

But how many people die on the roads every year, to keep things in 
perspective here?

>>      There's probably a Republican equivalent but I can't think of it at the
>> moment. Doesn't mean there isn't one though. I would not use this as an example
>> of the accusation "Clinton lied".
>
> Which is why I call it misleading... and it is.
>


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

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

#331400

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 4:38:46 PM UTC-7, GreyCloud wrote:
> On 11/05/15 14:54, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 2:30:12 PM UTC-7, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >> On 2015-11-05, Steve Carroll<fretwizzer@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:19:07 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>> In a discussion about "gun violence". While she'd be technically correct if
> >>> you confine the definition of the word "violence", she knows full well that
> >>> the term "gun violence" is  politically supercharged and it creates the
> >>> vision of people being senselessly murdered.
> >>
> >>      This is simply a problem with the Democrat position on gun control. You
> >> are not likely to find a Democrat that won't spin this subject in this way.
> >
> > Bull, I personally know plenty that don't. Why doesn't Clinton feel that the ~11,000 gun deaths are enough to make her argument? Why the need to spin it when you risk losing your credibility during a campaign? This makes no sense to me.
> >
> 
> But how many people die on the roads every year, to keep things in 
> perspective here?

I suppose we could go there but I don't know how helpful it'd be... and you know how Snit gets ;)

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

#331444

On 11/06/15 16:48, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 4:38:46 PM UTC-7, GreyCloud wrote:
>> On 11/05/15 14:54, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 2:30:12 PM UTC-7, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2015-11-05, Steve Carroll<fretwizzer@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:19:07 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> In a discussion about "gun violence". While she'd be technically correct if
>>>>> you confine the definition of the word "violence", she knows full well that
>>>>> the term "gun violence" is  politically supercharged and it creates the
>>>>> vision of people being senselessly murdered.
>>>>
>>>>       This is simply a problem with the Democrat position on gun control. You
>>>> are not likely to find a Democrat that won't spin this subject in this way.
>>>
>>> Bull, I personally know plenty that don't. Why doesn't Clinton feel that the ~11,000 gun deaths are enough to make her argument? Why the need to spin it when you risk losing your credibility during a campaign? This makes no sense to me.
>>>
>>
>> But how many people die on the roads every year, to keep things in
>> perspective here?
>
> I suppose we could go there but I don't know how helpful it'd be... and you know how Snit gets ;)
>
More likely to die from a bee hive attack around here than getting shot 
with a gun.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

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

#331443

On 11/06/15 17:02, Snit wrote:
> On 11/6/15, 4:38 PM, in article
> i6ydnZoBn8OZp6DLnZ2dnUU7-Q-dnZ2d@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud"<cumulus@mist.com>
> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>>> In a discussion about "gun violence". While she'd be technically correct if
>>>>> you confine the definition of the word "violence", she knows full well that
>>>>> the term "gun violence" is  politically supercharged and it creates the
>>>>> vision of people being senselessly murdered.
>>>>
>>>>       This is simply a problem with the Democrat position on gun control. You
>>>> are not likely to find a Democrat that won't spin this subject in this way.
>>>
>>> Bull, I personally know plenty that don't. Why doesn't Clinton feel that the
>>> ~11,000 gun deaths are enough to make her argument? Why the need to spin it
>>> when you risk losing your credibility during a campaign? This makes no sense
>>> to me.
>>
>> But how many people die on the roads every year, to keep things in
>> perspective here?
>
> It is a decent comparison: the death rates are similar. But we should keep
> in mind that vehicles are used a LOT more and by a lot more people and for
> longer times when they are used AND we have a massive amount of rules and
> laws and regulations about vehicular safety.
>
> We heavily regulate dangerous tools.
>
Yeah, but I don't hear anything about banning cars or having car control.
As long as local gov gets to tax the living daylights on a car, they 
don't care.


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

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

#331453

On 11/6/15, 7:51 PM, in article
ydudndFSNPOl-qDLnZ2dnUU7-Yvus__v@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud" <cumulus@mist.com>
wrote:

> On 11/06/15 17:02, Snit wrote:
>> On 11/6/15, 4:38 PM, in article
>> i6ydnZoBn8OZp6DLnZ2dnUU7-Q-dnZ2d@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud"<cumulus@mist.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>>> In a discussion about "gun violence". While she'd be technically correct
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> you confine the definition of the word "violence", she knows full well
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the term "gun violence" is  politically supercharged and it creates the
>>>>>> vision of people being senselessly murdered.
>>>>> 
>>>>>       This is simply a problem with the Democrat position on gun control.
>>>>> You
>>>>> are not likely to find a Democrat that won't spin this subject in this
>>>>> way.
>>>> 
>>>> Bull, I personally know plenty that don't. Why doesn't Clinton feel that
>>>> the
>>>> ~11,000 gun deaths are enough to make her argument? Why the need to spin it
>>>> when you risk losing your credibility during a campaign? This makes no
>>>> sense
>>>> to me.
>>> 
>>> But how many people die on the roads every year, to keep things in
>>> perspective here?
>> 
>> It is a decent comparison: the death rates are similar. But we should keep
>> in mind that vehicles are used a LOT more and by a lot more people and for
>> longer times when they are used AND we have a massive amount of rules and
>> laws and regulations about vehicular safety.
>> 
>> We heavily regulate dangerous tools.
>> 
> Yeah, but I don't hear anything about banning cars or having car control.

Many cars are banned and there are LOTS of laws on what type cars you can
use.

> As long as local gov gets to tax the living daylights on a car, they
> don't care.
> 



-- 
* 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]

#331547

Snit wrote:

> On 11/6/15, 7:51 PM, in article
> ydudndFSNPOl-qDLnZ2dnUU7-Yvus__v@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud"
> <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/06/15 17:02, Snit wrote:
>>> On 11/6/15, 4:38 PM, in article
>>> i6ydnZoBn8OZp6DLnZ2dnUU7-Q-dnZ2d@bresnan.com,
>>> "GreyCloud"<cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>>>>> In a discussion about "gun violence". While she'd be technically
>>>>>>> correct if
>>>>>>> you confine the definition of the word "violence", she knows full
>>>>>>> well that
>>>>>>> the term "gun violence" is  politically supercharged and it creates
>>>>>>> the vision of people being senselessly murdered.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>       This is simply a problem with the Democrat position on gun
>>>>>>       control.
>>>>>> You
>>>>>> are not likely to find a Democrat that won't spin this subject in
>>>>>> this way.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bull, I personally know plenty that don't. Why doesn't Clinton feel
>>>>> that the
>>>>> ~11,000 gun deaths are enough to make her argument? Why the need to
>>>>> spin it when you risk losing your credibility during a campaign? This
>>>>> makes no sense
>>>>> to me.
>>>> 
>>>> But how many people die on the roads every year, to keep things in
>>>> perspective here?
>>> 
>>> It is a decent comparison: the death rates are similar. But we should
>>> keep in mind that vehicles are used a LOT more and by a lot more people
>>> and for longer times when they are used AND we have a massive amount of
>>> rules and laws and regulations about vehicular safety.
>>> 
>>> We heavily regulate dangerous tools.
>>> 
>> Yeah, but I don't hear anything about banning cars or having car control.
> 
> Many cars are banned and there are LOTS of laws on what type cars you can
> use.
> 

The first one I can think of that should be banned are Fords.

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

#331023

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:52:03 PM UTC-7, owl wrote:
> 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?

The topic is gun control due to "gun violence" where *suicide* numbers were used to inflate the stats... and this fool claims your question is "off topic". Apparently, this 'leap' was just too big for his tiny brain.


> >> 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.

To Snit, "society" doesn't mean what it does to you or I, so why go there? Cut to the chase: What does the speed and ease with which a person can commit suicide have to do with "gun violence"? 

> >> 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."

He's in a discussion relating to Clinton's attempt to enact gun control and he asks that ridiculous question. The guy is intellectually and morally bankrupt, it's just not in his nature to discuss things honestly, .
 
> >>>> 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?

He must believe so, being that he's OK with abortion "On Request". So why shouldn't a person be able to do it "quick and easy" by a method of their own choosing?

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

#330947

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 2:14:34 PM UTC-7, Snit 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.

Nor had I and, frankly, I'm not surprised to see what I do.
 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7Dn-4LDUw4

The video suggests:

"Read Hillary's Plan to Stop Gun Violence"

I wanted to see the stated position on her site so I went there...

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

"While gun ownership is part of the fabric of many law-abiding communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. About 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. That is unacceptable. It is a rebuke to this nation we love."

Lumped in the same paragraph is "gun violence" and "killed", in back to back sentences. No big deal... until you research and realize that the numbers are lumped together with suicides... notably, that word does not appear on this webpage.

> > http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/03/hillary-clintons-gun-contro
> > l-ad-swells-gun-violence-number-66-percent-including-suicides/


As stated in the video: 
"This epidemic of gun violence knows no boundaries. Between 88 and 92 people a day are killed by guns."

The same blurring of the line as the text on her site.

> Thank you. That shows the context: universal background checks.

BZZZT! The "context" is that of "gun violence", for which she prescribes, among other things, "background checks". 

(snip more disingenuous BS from Snit)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web