Favorite War Room poster

[LionExMachina]

Reading about ol' Hotsauce Hillary is fast becoming one of my favorite pastimes in this post-percocet world.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

That would be @SouthoftheAndes.

Jack gets noticed because he openly says that even if he does not love Clinton, she is the best remaining candidate. There are many who think the same, but somehow he gets identified with it.

Ted Cruz is the candidate for the armpit.

Donald Trump is the candidate for the gut.

Bernie Sanders is the candidate for the heart.

Hillary Clinton is the candidate for the brain.

If doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity, then Clinton is the candidate for the insane.

There is nothing she is more qualified at than Sanders, she is a proven liar with proven poor judgement.

Sanders has been on the right side of every major issue that is negatively affecting this country.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you remove legacy, he doesn't make top 15. If you include only skill, he may make 20. Imo.

Why do you hate Mir so much, you evil monster?!!?!?!

If doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity, then Clinton is the candidate for the insane.

There is nothing she is more qualified at than Sanders, she is a proven liar with proven poor judgement.

So this is just vacuous sloganeering combined with a nasty character attack on a decent person. But there is one small grain of truth: All of the other three candidates in the race are proposing very radical fiscal-policy changes (and Trump and Cruz would actually be able to get them, as if either wins, he'll have a favorable Congress)--tax cuts for the rich of unprecedented scope in the case of Trump and Cruz, and tax increases of unprecedented scope in the case of Sanders--and unprecedented structural deficits in all three cases, likely (definitely for Trump and Cruz, probably for Sanders). Clinton is the only "normal" candidate in this race--proposing tougher financial regs, a few good ideas with pay-fors, etc.--but not proposing to completely remake the country.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Dude, you said this: "And yes, there was an individual right as understood by the people and confirmed by SCOTUS via Miller."

That's just not true. The "as understood by the people" part I'm pretty sure had only to do with which weapons were in common use. Like Scalia said, that case did not speak to the deep constitutional issue, and it wasn't even used as a reason to create an individual right. Don't you think that if Miller were strong enough to establish an individual right, the court would have said so, rather than calling it "particularly wrongheaded" to read it for more than what it was?

I explained what I meant and you're showing no ability or willingness to comment on the details I provided. As to your question, the individual right to own guns wasn't up for debate in Miller and that's my point. Instead of the government taking the angle they could make laws preventing people from having guns in general they took the approach that they could tax and create a list of certain guns and purchasers under the auspice of them not having military relevance. If there was no individual right then the argument would have been just that, but it wasn't. Because they used that argument they did then that's what the court ruled on. Because one side didn't present a case the other side won. Miller isn't a confirmation because SCOTUS declared x,y,z. I'm saying it's a confirmation based on the way the argument needed framed by the government.

Now please indulge me. When did SCOTUS rule that law-abiding citizens could be prevented from owning a firearm? Unless you've got something here it's ridiculous to say SCOTUS just recently created this right rather than viewing it as the right always having existed but directly stated only recently via Heller.

For the uninitiated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Judge Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.

On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

It looks to me like they're saying the 2nd protects something there. What is it do you think?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Why do you hate Mir so much, you evil monster?!!?!?!



So this is just vacuous sloganeering combined with a nasty character attack on a decent person. But there is one small grain of truth: All of the other three candidates in the race are proposing very radical fiscal-policy changes (and Trump and Cruz would actually be able to get them, as if either wins, he'll have a favorable Congress)--tax cuts for the rich of unprecedented scope in the case of Trump and Cruz, and tax increases of unprecedented scope in the case of Sanders--and unprecedented structural deficits in all three cases, likely (definitely for Trump and Cruz, probably for Sanders). Clinton is the only "normal" candidate in this race--proposing tougher financial regs, a few good ideas with pay-fors, etc.--but not proposing to completely remake the country.

So this is just vacuous sloganeering combined with Paid for by the DNC fervor for Hillary Clinton.
This "decent" person used the race card on Obama in '08., equated her lie about landing safely in Bosnia with the real experiences of real soldiers, pleaded with Bill Clinton to delay aid to Bosnia so it wouldn't take the limelight away from her healthcare bill, supported a coup in Honduras, the killing of 1 million people in the Middle East through her votes and support for the Iraq War, Afghanistan surge, Syria and Libya intervention (even now she promises a more muscular FP than Obama...), used the term "super predators" and supported the Clinton Crime bill with no thought to its ramifications, embraces money in politics, etc etc.

"Normal" as in "normal neo-liberal corporate neocon lying Democrat" is exactly the problem.

 

[Thurisaz]

Stuff

Not to butt in, but haven't you had like a hundred times you've exposed JVS as being full of shit? Do you think he will learn one day, or are you just doing this as a favor for the others reading the thread?

 

[Ruprecht]

What doesn't add up? Why don't mid-terms count? People that enact laws get voted on every two years in this country. The President doesn't create the law and only has veto power (which is nice for sure). Who is Hilary pandering to when she skewers Bernie over his vote to defend firearms manufacturers from illegal uses of legal products? I'm waiting to hear why I keep seeing that back and forth on a non-issue in what's turning out to be a bit more of a dogfight than many predicted.

If all you want to do is look at money without researching the barrage of legislation then you (like Jack) are missing the boat. Yes, the last ten years have been great for Bill of Rights supporters and that doesn't change the fact that it's more of a reclamation than a revolution within the context of American history.

The supposed power of the anti-gun lobby doesn't add up. Financially. Numerically. In terms of bills passed and the positions taken. They've got nothing. One campaign that almost matched the NRA in financing, just doesn't tell the picture in terms of political focus, activist numbers, effect or money.
Hillary is pandering to women, I'm sure she's checked the polls.
What barrage of legislation? Tougher background checks and restrictions on parts kits? Milk toast and they failed anyway.
Don't get me wrong, if the NRA wasn't so effective and the American right so passionate about guns, there would have been some form of restrictions imposed.
It's just that in comparison to that, the anti-gun movement is very weak with the exception of the periods directly following a bunch of high profile school shootings or the like.
It's just not a major issue with the American left like it is with the right, and the propositions for gun control put forward are as good as meaningless.
In terms of gun control, the fundamental difference between the US and every other developed nation is the idea of having firearms for common self-defence, and there's just no way anyone is going to take that on.

 

[Fawlty]

I explained what I meant and you're showing no ability or willingness to comment on the details I provided. As to your question, the individual right to own guns wasn't up for debate in Miller and that's my point. Instead of the government taking the angle they could make laws preventing people from having guns in general they took the approach that they could tax and create a list of certain guns and purchasers under the auspice of them not having military relevance. If there was no individual right then the argument would have been just that, but it wasn't. Because they used that argument they did then that's what the court ruled on. Because one side didn't present a case the other side won. Miller isn't a confirmation because SCOTUS declared x,y,z. I'm saying it's a confirmation based on the way the argument needed framed by the government.

Now please indulge me. When did SCOTUS rule that law-abiding citizens could be prevented from owning a firearm? Unless you've got something here it's ridiculous to say SCOTUS just recently created this right rather than viewing it as the right always having existed but directly stated only recently via Heller.

For the uninitiated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

It looks to me like they're saying the 2nd protects something there. What is it do you think?

The government can argue their case however they like. You're leaping in logic to assume that because a question did not arise that it implied an individual right. No, that requires certain things to happen. We don't know how the courts would have ruled back then had that been a question. And that brings us right back to Scalia when he admonishes you for being "particularly wrongheaded."

 

[Jack V Savage]

So this is just vacuous sloganeering combined with Paid for by the DNC fervor for Hillary Clinton.

This is idiotic. Read my post again and yours. You actually were posting vacuous sloganeering, while this is just your usual dishonest (and frankly bizarre) attacking of anyone who sees through your game, isn't it? My favorite one was when you were agreeing with the official Democratic position and I was disagreeing, but you asserting that I was acting as a secret agent because they didn't truly believe in the cause as much as you did.

This "decent" person used the race card on Obama in '08., equated her lie about landing safely in Bosnia with the real experiences of real soldiers, pleaded with Bill Clinton to delay aid to Bosnia so it wouldn't take the limelight away from her healthcare bill, supported a coup in Honduras, the killing of 1 million people in the Middle East through her votes and support for the Iraq War, Afghanistan surge, Syria and Libya intervention (even now she promises a more muscular FP than Obama...), used the term "super predators" and supported the Clinton Crime bill with no thought to its ramifications, embraces money in politics, etc etc.

Yes, you're running through the usual list of propaganda, including some obviously false stuff (Clinton pleaded with Bill to delay aid to Bosnia? WTF?). One bit is interesting, though. I previously asked you if you thought that the Iraq War would have happened if Hillary had voted against and if it would have happened if Nader hadn't run for office, and you refused to answer. Are you hinting at a "yes" to that first one now? Given the obvious answers to those questions (and the reason you refuse to answer them), isn't it a little odd that you try to portray Clinton as a genocidal monster, while you think that Nader is actually a decent human being?

"Normal" as in "normal neo-liberal corporate neocon lying Democrat" is exactly the problem.

Normal as in what I said.

Not to butt in, but haven't you had like a hundred times you've exposed JVS as being full of shit? Do you think he will learn one day, or are you just doing this as a favor for the others reading the thread?

It's funny how all the dumbest right-wing posters here agree with your attacks, and yet you claim to be on the left this time (after supporting a right-wing extremist last time).

 

[Thames]

That's funny. Didn't see that thread, but my own experience with DS is that he's really sensitive. Like a couple of times I remember very civil discussions and then he's like, "calm down, man. Stop attacking me," and I'm like, "what are you talking about?" etc. He's an OK poster, but really odd that way.

Our last exchange ended like this: http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/115664809/

He annoys me like hell. Reminds me a bit of IDL. Clearly driven by a right wing agenda but without the balls to say it, and instead acts like he has entered a 4th dimension where he is above "taking sides". When I call him on his bullshit he just goes into panic mode screaming "ad hominem" and "strawman" until I leave him alone.

you sound rude right now

You haven't even seen my final form.

Calling you out again?

I just mentioned I think it's petty to be talking about a thread from a year ago in an obvious attempt to put a guy down. If you don't think so, keep at it, it's your world.

OMG! Petty?! What's with the ad hominems?! Why can't you be civil?! If you are just going to put up a strawman and be condescending, then you can forget everything about this discussion!

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The supposed power of the anti-gun lobby doesn't add up. Financially. Numerically. In terms of bills passed and the positions taken. They've got nothing. One campaign that almost matched the NRA in financing, just doesn't tell the picture in terms of political focus, activist numbers, effect or money.
Hillary is pandering to women, I'm sure she's checked the polls.
What barrage of legislation? Tougher background checks and restrictions on parts kits? Milk toast and they failed anyway.
Don't get me wrong, if the NRA wasn't so effective and the American right so passionate about guns, there would have been some form of restrictions imposed.
It's just that in comparison to that, the anti-gun movement is very weak with the exception of the periods directly following a bunch of high profile school shootings or the like.
It's just not a major issue with the American left like it is with the right, and the propositions for gun control put forward are as good as meaningless.
In terms of gun control, the fundamental difference between the US and every other developed nation is the idea of having firearms for common self-defence, and there's just no way anyone is going to take that on.

I guess you've got it all figured out then. Must be something about actually growing up here and being on both sides of the argument at different points in my life that has tainted my view.

Funny how you agree Hilary is pandering but then gloss over the implication of using anti-gun rhetoric to pander. Funny how she's using the subject to hurt Bernie when none of the voters care about it. But hey, just because of the money spent politically on the side of defending the right has been substantially more historically that means the left isn't trying to strip people of their rights. And because gun owners finally had enough (after the Hughes Amendment and the AWB) and are on top of things such that they're cutting this legislation off at the pass that means there is no threat.

You know what else is lopsided in this country. The whole race issue. Not one person I know cares to keep black folks down. Nobody is introducing anti-black legislation or spending large amounts lobbying for such. That makes it some kind of non-issue, right?


Here's some legislation that passed, but dismiss that too because it doesn't affect you. In reality though people here almost all live in states that also have laws. The absence of sweeping Congressional action is hardly proof that infringements aren't both threatened and implemented. And yes, I realize legislation was passed that strengthened 2nd Amendment rights too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_after_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ne-newtown-gun-control-mental-health/4009051/


Ps. What have you got against women that you're so dismissive of them?

Spoiler

Just having a little fun with you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not to butt in, but haven't you had like a hundred times you've exposed JVS as being full of shit? Do you think he will learn one day, or are you just doing this as a favor for the others reading the thread?

Our last exchange ended like this: http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/115664809/

He annoys me like hell. Reminds me a bit of IDL. Clearly driven by a right wing agenda but without the balls to say it, and instead acts like he has entered a 4th dimension where he is above "taking sides". When I call him on his bullshit he just goes into panic mode screaming "ad hominem" and "strawman" until I leave him alone.

I feel you. I've had that exact kind of experience with him.

And, yeah, you named the most annoying thing about IDL. "I'm above all this left/right bullshit--watch these right-wing extremist videos explaining how all labor and civil-rights movements are secretly led by Jewish bankers who are trying to white genocide us."

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The government can argue their case however they like. You're leaping in logic to assume that because a question did not arise that it implied an individual right. No, that requires certain things to happen. We don't know how the courts would have ruled back then had that been a question. And that brings us right back to Scalia when he admonishes you for being "particularly wrongheaded."

Much like my point about Miller (it being important what wasn't said), you're failure to address my question says it all. At no time was the 2nd ruled a "collective" right vs. one held by an individual. Couple that with the fact that individuals have had the right to own guns since the nation began and your claim that this is somehow a new right falls on its face.

 

[dontsnitch]

Our last exchange ended like this: http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/115664809/

He annoys me like hell. Reminds me a bit of IDL. Clearly driven by a right wing agenda but without the balls to say it, and instead acts like he has entered a 4th dimension where he is above "taking sides". When I call him on his bullshit he just goes into panic mode screaming "ad hominem" and "strawman" until I leave him alone.



You haven't even seen my final form.



OMG! Petty?! What's with the ad hominems?! Why can't you be civil?! If you are just going to put up a strawman and be condescending, then you can forget everything about this discussion!

You're clearly upset about the Islam thread.

Not sure what else to tell you. I disagree with your views.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're clearly upset about the Islam thread.

Not sure what else to tell you. I disagree with your views.

Since I really like Thames' posting and you're OK, I'll intervene here. He's talking about how he goes to the trouble of making a pretty in-depth response, and then you get so sensitive about the kind of harsh tone that you abandoned the discussion. Then he complains about that, and you go into personal attack mode (leaving the actual discussion further behind).

I mean, if you don't have thick skin, that's fine. It is what it is. But that's what he's talking about. Not your difference of opinion. Lots of people here have differences of opinion, and it even gets heated or dismissive, but it doesn't have to be an obstacle to communication. You can still profitably engage with someone you don't like or respect (though it's hard with someone like Anung, who just constantly lies about what people say and think and makes up lies about them personally).

 

[dontsnitch]

Since I really like Thames' posting and you're OK, I'll intervene here. He's talking about how he goes to the trouble of making a pretty in-depth response, and then you get so sensitive about the kind of harsh tone that you abandoned the discussion. Then he complains about that, and you go into personal attack mode (leaving the actual discussion further behind).

I mean, if you don't have thick skin, that's fine. It is what it is. But that's what he's talking about. Not your difference of opinion. Lots of people here have differences of opinion, and it even gets heated or dismissive, but it doesn't have to be an obstacle to communication. You can still profitably engage with someone you don't like or respect (though it's hard with someone like Anung, who just constantly lies about what people say and think and makes up lies about them personally).

I like to be civil. If that's a flaw, then so be it.

My main objection is not only people being rude, although it bothers me, but it's using insults instead of evidence. Like, "well you don't agree because you don't understand my nuance, because you're stupid." It's not just an insult, it's meant to poison the well, and thus it's an ad hominem in the truest sense.

I don't think this is a big deal. Thames is accusing me of being sensitive, but he's clearly upset about our past exchange. I'm willing to let this go and move on.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Not to butt in, but haven't you had like a hundred times you've exposed JVS as being full of shit? Do you think he will learn one day, or are you just doing this as a favor for the others reading the thread?

Every thread is groundhogs day for Jack.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I like to be civil. If that's a flaw, then so be it.

Being civil is great. Not a flaw at all. Heck, you're talking to the nicest guy on Sherdog.

My main objection is not only people being rude, although it bothers me, but it's using insults instead of evidence. Like, "well you don't agree because you don't understand my nuance, because you're stupid." It's not just an insult, it's meant to poison the well, and thus it's an ad hominem in the truest sense.

But when it's, "here's a lot of evidence, you retard," and the response is, "I can't handle being called a retard so I'm going to pout instead of responding to the evidence," that can be annoying for people. Again, it's all up to you. Just thinking since I have decent relations with both of you that I can clear that up.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

This is idiotic. Read my post again and yours. You actually were posting vacuous sloganeering, while this is just your usual dishonest (and frankly bizarre) attacking of anyone who sees through your game, isn't it? My favorite one was when you were agreeing with the official Democratic position and I was disagreeing, but you asserting that I was acting as a secret agent because they didn't truly believe in the cause as much as you did.



Yes, you're running through the usual list of propaganda, including some obviously false stuff (Clinton pleaded with Bill to delay aid to Bosnia? WTF?). One bit is interesting, though. I previously asked you if you thought that the Iraq War would have happened if Hillary had voted against and if it would have happened if Nader hadn't run for office, and you refused to answer. Are you hinting at a "yes" to that first one now? Given the obvious answers to those questions (and the reason you refuse to answer them), isn't it a little odd that you try to portray Clinton as a genocidal monster, while you think that Nader is actually a decent human being?



Normal as in what I said.



It's funny how all the dumbest right-wing posters here agree with your attacks, and yet you claim to be on the left this time (after supporting a right-wing extremist last time).

Lol, you blamed Nader for the Iraq war and now excusing Hillary's vote for the war because it was inevitable? The DNC has to move you off Sherdog and get you on CNN.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Reading about ol' Hotsauce Hillary is fast becoming one of my favorite pastimes in this post-percocet world.

Lmao! Oh man, that's funny