I would say that it started earlier with the judges than with the voters. In fact the judges' polarization is one of the reasons why the voters are polarized.
Release The Memo
- Thread starter Clean
- Start date
I would say that it started earlier with the judges than with the voters. In fact the judges' polarization is one of the reasons why the voters are polarized.
Do you have any reading material to provide me? What I've read isn't saying this at all.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
The subsequent increase in weapons purchases coincided with a decrease in gun violence. There appears to have been no relationship to the two concepts. And have you read the details on what was covered in that law and how guns were labeled as "assault rifles?" Calling them "arbitrary" would be kind.
Doing this off the top of my head, but one example is that a rifle that includes a pistol grip and a bayonet fixture (I don't think it actually had to have the bayonet, just the place to attach it) goes from being a legal weapon to a banned assault weapon. The same weapon might be legal if it were wood grain colored rather than black.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
In response to a congressional subpoena, former Director of the John McCain Institute (and former State Dept official) David Kramer takes Da Fif regarding his role in handling the Steele Dossier. He is who gave it to BuzzFeed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-takes-fifth-on-trump-dossier-questions.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-takes-fifth-on-trump-dossier-questions.html
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I'm sure there are arbitrary things there. Somewhere in that town hall thing that I watched during Olympic commercials (rooting for the commies, you know) they mentioned that there were 202 weapons limited by that ban.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Apparently, multiple people gave it to the FBI. It alleges collusion with a foreign government to get a candidate elected. Said candidate has done everything but fly a Russian flag on the front fenders of his limo.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
As noted, the allegation is that this is the guy who gave it to Buzzfeed
We amazingly seem to agree that the aim of the Steele Dossier was to get this candidate elected.
This limo?
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
I'll take that as a "no, you didn't read it." Having read the defining characteristics myself, I can safely trust MY gut that it was completely useless legislation.
They also denied or strongly questioned that the shooter had been contacted by the sheriff's office multiple times, they said Marco Rubio was as guilty as the guy who shot up the school, and called anyone who disagreed with them murderers. I'm assuming those must also be true, since you heard them on CNN.
Last edited:
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
No need to be a dick. I don't know how many it banned and that's really not the point. The point is that the DATA points out that it had a positive impact on deaths when it was in place and, when it expired, the death of people in mass shootings increased.
You're telling me that high school kids who's classmates were gunned down and parents of those kids were rude to the spokesperson for the organization trying to put a gun in every holster and to the guy who took $3.2 million from the NRA and who's voted in lock step with said organization? Shocked!
Credit to Marco for showing up. Dana lost any credit she earned when she was a total witch in less than 12 hours for all to see. It's like at the town hall she was a hostage reading a script but blinking in Morse code trying to get a message out.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I'll summarize the #'s for you.
84-94: 19 shootings, 155 deaths
94-2004: 12 shootings, 89 deaths
2004-2014: 34 shootings, 302 deaths
[Here's where you're supposed to get on the script and speak about black on black crime. If you're really good you can figure out how to work anglo-saxon or Judeo-Christian in there somewhere]
84-94: 19 shootings, 155 deaths
94-2004: 12 shootings, 89 deaths
2004-2014: 34 shootings, 302 deaths
[Here's where you're supposed to get on the script and speak about black on black crime. If you're really good you can figure out how to work anglo-saxon or Judeo-Christian in there somewhere]
I'll do you one even better. How about Planned Parenthood? When you libs do the "let's protect the kids" thing I can't help but laugh at the hypocrisy.
Btw, there's no evidence that tougher gun laws would have made any difference in these totals.
Last edited:
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I don't know anyone who advocates for late term abortion and I don't advocate for any personally. I think the courts have spoken. Yes, there's some dissonance there.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
So, it's just an incredible coincidence of data?
Since the majority of mass shootings are done with handguns it's probably a coincidence. It's not like someone who is crazy is going to decide not to go a shooting spree because he can't get his hands on an AR-15.
Last edited:
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
And I didn't ask, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to bring that up.
First, what's your source for the $3.2 million number? Here's my source that says you're making things up at this point.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00030612
Even CNN thinks you don't know what you're talking about. If he took less than $10k according to CNN in the 2016 cycle, how many years has he been in politics???
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics/nra-pvf-contributions-florida-politicians/index.html
Considering the NRA's entire annual budget is around $3 million, I'm really curious why they would spend so much on one guy. Are you claiming that they spent that much money on ads and mailers specifically for Rubio? If so, a source would be nice... Unless you're just making stuff up...
Then stop saying stupid things and ignoring arguments that contradict said stupid things.
And don't talk to me about being civil when you say crap like this: "[Here's where you're supposed to get on the script and speak about black on black crime. If you're really good you can figure out how to work anglo-saxon or Judeo-Christian in there somewhere]"
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Wayne L makes $5 mill a year. Is that fake news? Donald got over $30 mill if you count the money they spent against Hillary.
I’ve linked a picture that references opensecrets for the 3.2 figure preciously. I’m on my blackberry so I can’t find it right now.
Here’s the reason:
Sooner, can you post this on the shooter post instead of the memo post? Get your posts straight!
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Dems got their memo out, after massive redactions
Seems like it only confirms the key points of the Nunes Memo. Namely that the FISA judge was never informed that Hillary Clinton and the DNC funded the Steele Dossier. Nor was the Court informed that no surveillance warrant would have ever been sought without that Dossier.
Trump has already called it a "bust."
Seems like it only confirms the key points of the Nunes Memo. Namely that the FISA judge was never informed that Hillary Clinton and the DNC funded the Steele Dossier. Nor was the Court informed that no surveillance warrant would have ever been sought without that Dossier.
Trump has already called it a "bust."
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
What does Wayne's salary have to do with what Marco Rubio accepted from the NRA? I quoted their annual contributions budget. I'm sure you can understand that accountants don't include executive pay under the same budget line as they include campaign contributions.
And btw you didn't say that the NRA spent $3 million in ads that supported Marco Rubio (assuming that's even true.) You said Rubio took $3 mill from the NRA, which is provably false. There's a difference between direct contributions and ads which a company may make that are independent of a candidate. Marco Rubio has no control over what the NRA may spend in ads "on his behalf." For you to say he took that much money from the NRA is dishonest because it feeds the narrative that Rubio feels compelled to follow the NRA's bidding because he can't afford to campaign without them. This is untrue, which is not convenient for your narrative.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Keep telling yourself that if that's what it takes.
It's also a massive double standard. The implication of all of this is that the NRA bought off Rubio. He isn't pro-gun because of any real principles on his part. He's only pro-gun because the NRA is lining his pocket. Obviously Democrats take far more from labor unions and limousine liberal types like Tom Steyer, George Soros, Warren Buffet, the technology sector, and the entire entertainment industry. However, the mainstream political media very seldom suggests that Democrats favor or oppose policy agenda items because of the money they take from these groups as they've done with Rubio. It's just assumed that they are principled statesmen who these patriotic businessmen and industries just happen to agree with.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
And you keep spinning and deflecting. The truth is that you'd much rather say "Rubio took $3 million from the NRA" than the more accurate statement, which is "the NRA spent $3 million on pro gun political ads, highlighting that Rubio's opponent is anti-gun." (BTW I am saying the "more accurate statement because I don't know all the details about the actual ads, what their content was, and whether they were "pro-Rubio" or "anti-whoever". Do we even know if the NRA actually spent $3 million on ads that specifically endorsed Rubio? Or for that matter that all that money was spent specifically on his campaign? So far your willingness to play fast and loose with the truth tells me that none of those things can be taken for granted just because you state them as fact.) Because your language indicates that the NRA physically gave him large sums of money, which gives people the vision of someone slipping Rubio an envelope stuffed with $100 bills and saying "Now go do what we want you to do."
You cannot take money from someone if money does not change hands. That is the definition of what it means to take or accept something. If you had just been honest and used the accurate description, that would be fine - no one is denying that the NRA isn't invested in promoting legislators who are supportive of gun rights. But you aren't going to do that because you have a liar's picture as your avatar, you care more about winning an argument than you do about being honest, and you'd rather just throw a bunch of vague general accusations against the wall that will convince a few people you're right, and allow you to weasel out of the accusations of inaccurate statements by saying "hey... I didn't mean he LITERALLY TOOK MONEY, I just mean... and that's the same thing, right?"
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
I'm waiting for the CNN town hall where CNN brings in a bunch of moderate pro-choice people along with pro-life people, talks about late term abortion bans and asks Planned Parenthood why they are continuously paying congressional leaders to go against the will of something like 70 percent of the American people - not to mention allowing something that almost every other developed country in the world outlaws. And then grill Chuck Schumer about all the money PP "GIVES" him and have some teenager demand that he stop taking money from them.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
