Who should be the next president?

[Skull]

And Obama caused all this stuff?
Quit being a kid.Your politics are like Steve Ditko.

I know some people actually believe that ISIS was created by Obama. But I don't believed it. I do know that Hillary and Obama had the option to stop ISIS before they were big and they refused to act.

The Iran Nuke deal is Obama, Democrats and most of the current Republicans fault. I think everybody that signed the deal should be tried for treason.

I was wrong about NK... but I've been hearing all the nuke tests in the last 4 years.

And Putin is p**sing in the Obama cool aid.

[lester1/2jr]

I know some people actually believe that ISIS was created by Obama. But I don't believed it. I do know that Hillary and Obama had the option to stop ISIS before they were big and they refused to act.

"act" how launch another war in the Middle East? no thanks

and how are Iran, Putin and North Korea my/ our problem either?

speaking of which, ever notice how people use the expression 'the world stage" but really there is no stage? like physically. where is the world stage? rome?

Is it where Hamilton plays?

[ulthar]

And, I'll just leave this here, with the added comment that not all known incidents in the second category are included in this graphic.  But, no...a armed citizen present at the time of the attack doesn't have an effect!!!  Let the Cognitive Dissonance begin!

[Trevor]

Just to get people smiling:



 

[Rev. Powell]

Just so you guys know, I have received a complaint about this thread (non-specific, not mentioning anyone's name) from someone who's not involved in the arguments here.

I am fairly sure Andrew never would have let this thread go on so long, but he's not around, and I don't feel like the mods here have the authority to lock it unless it gets ridiculously bad.

I just remind you all once more to remember to be polite in your disagreements.

[Skull]

from someone who's not involved in the arguments here.

Freedom to Silence?

I've seen threads like this in other places and this is one the most tamed. I've cringed with the ulthar/lester1/2jr debate but it's not that bad compared to other websites. The gun debate is a big issue.

I'm going to stay away from this thread for a few days :)

[ulthar]

Just so you guys know, I have received a complaint about this thread (non-specific, not mentioning anyone's name) from someone who's not involved in the arguments here.

Okay, so...this exactly the kind of thing that Milo Yiannopoulus, and many others, have been talking about in regard to the cultural suppression of "Freedom of Speech" by people that don't want any ideas that disagree with their own even stated.

Why in the heck is someone that is not even participating in the thread complaining about it?  If someone does not like the argument/discussion/debate...whatever you want to call it...don't read it.

What is GAINED by complaining in such a case?  One possible thing is that someone said something someone didn't like or agree with and rather than speak up, it's an end-run around participation and going behind the scenes to 'block' conversation.  That's SJW style tactics and if it were me, I'd be very wary of letting that get a foot-hold here on this site.

This thread is harmless...it's a hand full of bmdo members, all who have 'known' each other a LONG time on here...venting and batting things around.  We've ALL had heated conversations (moreso than this, truth be told) in the past, and we're all still friends.

Lock it if you want; I sure don't care.  But seriously, this is a bizarre justification to do so.

[Rev. Powell]

Just so you guys know, I have received a complaint about this thread (non-specific, not mentioning anyone's name) from someone who's not involved in the arguments here.

Okay, so...this exactly the kind of thing that Milo Yiannopoulus, and many others, have been talking about in regard to the cultural suppression of "Freedom of Speech" by people that don't want any ideas that disagree with their own even stated.

I don't agree with that assessment at all. The complaint is not about the content of the thread or anyone's opinion, but with the decorum of some of the participants, i.e. that it has gotten "too nasty."

I do agree that the best response is not to read the thread if you find it annoying and unpleasant.

[ulthar]

Okay, so...this exactly the kind of thing that Milo Yiannopoulus, and many others, have been talking about in regard to the cultural suppression of "Freedom of Speech" by people that don't want any ideas that disagree with their own even stated.

I don't agree with that assessment at all. The complaint is not about the content of the thread or anyone's opinion, but with the decorum of some of the participants, i.e. that it has gotten "too nasty."

I do agree that the best response is not to read the thread if you find it annoying and unpleasant.

So, you've just confirmed exactly what I said....a SJW-esque attempt to shut down the discussion.  That's EXACTLY the tactic used.

As I said, do what you want.  But know that this "stop it, it's too nasty" stuff grows like a cancer on every web site, forum, blog, whatever that it starts in.  Today it's the "Who Will Be The Next President" thread but it won't stop there.

Seriously...think about it.  Someone that is not even participating in the discussion is complaining that the discussion is "nasty" when we've seen far worse on here over MOVIE opinions.  Wasn't it WyredWizard or something like that used to start some mondo discussions?  Some of the replies to him FAR exceeded anything in this thread.

If no one in the actual discussion has their feelings hurt by it, why should someone not participating care?  That's a real question...what is the TRUE motivation in the complaint?

This is the very essence of "freedom."  Freedom (speech, or any other) is not every one getting along and happily saying what they want so long as they don't offend anyone.  Freedom is messy.  It's easy in the happy times, but it gets a might harder when one is faced with granting those freedoms to others...especially others with whom one disagrees.

This is VERY relevant to the topic of this thread.  This election is about the very core concept of what the United States of America really is right now in this point in history.  Are we a nation built on the founding principles outlined in the US Constitution, or are we something else?  If something else, what?

The anger and frustration mildly expressed in this thread is simply a snapshot of the very real anger felt by nearly everyone in the country.  The supporters of all candidates are angry, and many are angry that they don't have a candidate they can support.

In this climate, it is exactly the WRONG time to even try to stifle discussion.  It is ONLY through discussion/debate/argument that we learn new things and find a path through the anger and frustration.

I've gotten on Lester's case a bit in this thread, and I'll admit that.  But, I have a LOT of respect for him and agree with a lot of what he says...here and in past discussions.  I said what I said to him because I am 100% confident that he can "take it," ... and give it right back.  He's not afraid to say what he needs to say to me - even if that happened to be "eff off" - and he shouldn't be.  I can "take it" as well.

Now, I know this is wordy so AHD will be upset with me (if he reads it...   ), but there you go.  This is who we are.  We KNOW each other.  We can take a little bit of 'disagreement' without losing our friendship.  If that were not the case, most of us would have bailed on this site years ago.

So, here's my proposal.  If you believe this thread needs to be shut down, I propose you just ditch all the OT related boards completely.  We'll still have heated debates in the movie threads from time to time, but at least they won't be "politics," right?

[Trevor]

I was the one who raised the issue with Rev: I hate to see people I consider family going at each other's throats over politics.

[Rev. Powell]

I'm sorry I brought you into this, Trevor. My mistake. I did advise Trevor simply not to read this thread, which I think is the best advice.

[Allhallowsday]

Okay, so...this exactly the kind of thing that Milo Yiannopoulus, and many others, have been talking about in regard to the cultural suppression of "Freedom of Speech" by people that don't want any ideas that disagree with their own even stated.

I don't agree with that assessment at all. The complaint is not about the content of the thread or anyone's opinion, but with the decorum of some of the participants, i.e. that it has gotten "too nasty."
I do agree that the best response is not to read the thread if you find it annoying and unpleasant.

So, you've just confirmed exactly what I said....a SJW-esque attempt to shut down the discussion.  That's EXACTLY the tactic used.

But you don't need to be right.   

...
I've gotten on Lester's case a bit in this thread, and I'll admit that.  But, I have a LOT of respect for him and agree with a lot of what he says...here and in past discussions.  I said what I said to him because I am 100% confident that he can "take it," ... and give it right back.  He's not afraid to say what he needs to say to me - even if that happened to be "eff off" - and he shouldn't be.  I can "take it" as well.

 
You got that first statement right, but I'd say more than "a bit". 

Now, I know this is wordy so AHD will be upset with me (if he reads it...   ), but there you go. ..

"Upset"?  You give your many words too much weight... or merit.  You are annoying, but I could not be angry with you.  Me love you long time.  Oh, and I never debated the merits of an armed victim stopping an assault.  I think remarks about victims being armed puts the onus on them.  Guess what?  Many people don't want handguns.  I wanted to know how quickly the murderer we were discussing acquired his semi-automatic rifle.  I asked about the FBI in relation to this case (an issue with legs).  I think I had a 3rd query.  Additionally, I would be interested to know how many rounds a shooter could get off of such a weapon in one minute.  If you have responses, keep 'em brief.  You're not in a courtroom, or a science lab; you're on an internet forum.    


Thank you, Rev, for trying to keep order and being there for all of us. 

Trevor, give the good Rev a break; he's on his own with enough to concern himself with here.  You don't like a portion of the forum?  Wade in and let everybody know.  Perhaps you'll influence some. 

[ulthar]

I wanted to know how quickly the murderer we were discussing acquired his semi-automatic rifle.

What do you mean by "quickly?"  From the time he went into the store to get it until he left?

He had plenty of time to acquire his weapon of choice by legal or illegal means.  He'd been planning this (or a similar) attack for a month or more.

What you'll notice is that I repeatedly dismissed this question as irrelevant, because it is.  Who cares "how quickly?"  It adds nothing to the discussion and is nothing but a distraction.

  I asked about the FBI in relation to this case (an issue with legs).

What do you want to know about the FBI? 

Here's what is understood right now: He was investigated by the FBI twice, was once on a 'watch list' of some kind but subsequently taken off, one gun store he tried to purchase in found him suspicious so the owner called the police (nothing was done) AND he passed all NICS checks for firearm purchases AND obtained a special security license AND worked for a security company that has now been tied directly to the movement and placing of illegal immigrants.

What is it specifically you want to know about the FBI's involvement in the period before he attacked?

Additionally, I would be interested to know how many rounds a shooter could get off of such a weapon in one minute.

How fast can a shooter pull the trigger?  1-2 times per second if not aiming maybe, but you can't really sustain that rate of fire.  Most AR magazines are 30 rounds or less, so, you'd have to include magazine changes in there.

But again, what POSSIBLE relevance does that have?  He was alone in the building with the victims for what, 20 minutes or so, before the cops arrived and a total of THREE HOURS before he was engaged by the cops.

It has now been well established that at least one person died due to the lack of medical attention and another was shot during the 'down time' between police arrival and engagement.

So, his 'rate of fire' is immaterial.  If you look at the graphic I posted earlier, you will see that in ALL the cases in the top category, the time available to the bad guy is long enough to do similar destruction with ANY firearm, a knife or even a rock.

As has been astutely pointed out on other forums, in that kind of timescale (three hours) he could easily have had a Brown Bess muzzleloader and killed the number of people he did.  His choice of weapon or proficiency with it had nothing to do with the outcome.
 

  If you have responses, keep 'em brief. 

Yeah, tell ya what.  I'll go ahead and respond however length I want.  If you don't want to read it, that's your call and I couldn't care less.

[Allhallowsday]

...

Yeah, tell ya what.  I'll go ahead and respond however length I want.  If you don't want to read it, that's your call and I couldn't care less.

Well you don't have to be unfriendly.  After all, it is your opinion that my concerns are irrelevant and worthy of dismissal, so why even bother to respond with no responses?  Oh yes, you couldn't then open the vortex and blow.   

 

[indianasmith]

Back to the topic of Who should be the Next President?






ME!!!!!