Another school shooting

[tinselwolverine]

Do they teach critical thinking at all at Ohio State?

The story you referred to as "fake news" and was linked to in what you quoted in post #71 had nothing to do with the AP - it ran in the Daily Beast.

If the story that appeared in the Daily Beast was ever run by the AP, you haven't provided evidence to substantiate that.

Whatever you think of my sources, it doesn’t change the fact that AP totally blew this story and in doing so, created fake news that dupes like Champ and apparently you were eager to consume.

You are such a freakin' bozo...you post a link to an AP story to discredit a story in The Daily Beast as being fake news...and then you turn around and bash the AP - your own source that you just linked to - for publishing fake news.

Do you have any idea what an idiot you look like right now?

I hope sgg is laughing at you - 'cuz I sure am...

 

[jwlcosu]

You are such a freakin' bozo...you post a link to an AP story to discredit a story in The Daily Beast as being fake news...and then you turn around and bash the AP - your own source that you just linked to - for publishing fake news.

Do you have any idea what an idiot you look like right now?

I hope sgg is laughing at you - 'cuz I sure am...

Have to admit I screwed that up a little

 

[sggatecl]

You are such a freakin' bozo...you post a link to an AP story to discredit a story in The Daily Beast as being fake news...and then you turn around and bash the AP - your own source that you just linked to - for publishing fake news.

Do you have any idea what an idiot you look like right now?

I hope sgg is laughing at you - 'cuz I sure am...

I certainly chuckled. Reminded me of that story we were read as kids, "The Boy Who Cried Fake News!"

 

[tinselwolverine]

I certainly chuckled. Reminded me of that story we were read as kids, "The Boy Who Cried Fake News!"

Liberals certainly have their own demonizing mythology about conservatives, like, for example. "Republicans want to do away with Social Security and Medicare."

Conservatives look for mainstream media bias against conservatives under every rock.

 

[turok]

Liberals certainly have their own demonizing mythology about conservatives, like, for example. "Republicans want to do away with Social Security and Medicare."

While there are some Liberals who believe that conservatives want to eliminate SS and Medicare, and some Republicans who would if they could, most liberals believe that most Republicans' goal is to privatize them both, including me. IIRC they have been planning for significant cuts to Medicare by 2025, ironically and exactly when the "temporary" tax cuts for the 99% are set to expire.

But how they could pull it off, like for example, by grandfathering those of a certain age, while those under a certain age would begin to either voluntarily pay into some kind of privatized system involving for-profit institutions, or opt into involuntarily traditional government SS/Medicare is unknown. Since Congress has long used SS as their pork-barrel piggy bank, it is as filled with IOUs as the Dumb and Dumber movie duos' briefcase. Since the deductions being made now are being used to fund current SS/SSI, and Medicare-aid, losing a sgnificant number to privatization means less funds paid into them, for those receiving one or more of each.

Of course this is hardly the ideal time to be fucking around with either, given that the largest segment of the US population will all have reached eligibility age by the middle of the next decade. They could raise the age of of eligibilty to 70-72, but that would mean the jobs that they hold will create a logjam for those younger who will not be able to replace them. And of course most businesses prefer to have a younger, healthier, and cheaper workforce, so those age 55 or older aren't exactly gonna be in high demand or very desirably retained.

But hey, maybe another round of permanent tax cuts would pursuade business to create/retain more jobs for the aging workforce, as well as those unable to move up the corporate ladder...lolz. And as Gulo has posted, an increasing amount of employers are avoiding the profits-choking overhead of employing Murkin labor directly and permanently, by using the "gig" labor of independent contractors, so as to not have to pay into unemployment insurance, FICA, pensions, 401Ks, health insurance, etc. Kinda flies into the face of the Republicans highly touted TC & JA, now doesn't it?

 

[tomdalton22]

While there are some Liberals who believe that conservatives want to eliminate SS and Medicare, and some Republicans who would if they could, most liberals believe that most Republicans' goal is to privatize them both, including me. IIRC they have been planning for significant cuts to Medicare by 2025, ironically and exactly when the "temporary" tax cuts for the 99% are set to expire.

But how they could pull it off, like for example, by grandfathering those of a certain age, while those under a certain age would begin to either voluntarily pay into some kind of privatized system involving for-profit institutions, or opt into involuntarily traditional government SS/Medicare is unknown. Since Congress has long used SS as their pork-barrel piggy bank, it is as filled with IOUs as the Dumb and Dumber movie duos' briefcase. Since the deductions being made now are being used to fund current SS/SSI, and Medicare-aid, losing a sgnificant number to privatization means less funds paid into them, for those receiving one or more of each.

Of course this is hardly the ideal time to be fucking around with either, given that the largest segment of the US population will all have reached eligibility age by the middle of the next decade. They could raise the age of of eligibilty to 70-72, but that would mean the jobs that they hold will create a logjam for those younger who will not be able to replace them. And of course most businesses prefer to have a younger, healthier, and cheaper workforce, so those age 55 or older aren't exactly gonna be in high demand or very desirably retained.

But hey, maybe another round of permanent tax cuts would pursuade business to create/retain more jobs for the aging workforce, as well as those unable to move up the corporate ladder...lolz. And as Gulo has posted, an increasing amount of employers are avoiding the profits-choking overhead of employing Murkin labor directly and permanently, by using the "gig" labor of independent contractors, so as to not have to pay into unemployment insurance, FICA, pensions, 401Ks, health insurance, etc. Kinda flies into the face of the Republicans highly touted TC & JA, now doesn't it?

just curious, how old are you? Are you currently employed?

 

[turok]

just curious, how old are you? Are you currently employed?

What do they have to do with what I posted? If you have read some of my previous posts here, I have already revealed both.

You?

 

[tomdalton22]

What do they have to do with what I posted? If you have read some of my previous posts here, I have already revealed both.

You?

I know you are close to getting a government and railroad retirement but don't know what age you are eligible for those benefits. I don't know if you are currently employed.

I am 49 and I am employed.

 

[turok]

I am 61, on non-SSD related disability since '11, and will be officially RR and Fed pension-retired by next December 1st.

 

[tomdalton22]

I am 61, on non-SSD related disability since '11, and will be officially RR and Fed pension-retired by next December 1st.

does your disability $$ end when you get your retirement $$?

 

[turok]

It will end, and my monthly income will increase by 60%.

 

[Spartanmack]

on NRA spending: the $2MM number is bullshit and you're a bald-faced liar for even pretending you could make claim that in good faith. $2MM doesn't buy shit in DC; if that's all they could spend, we'd have banned assault rifles years ago, and hundreds of Americans would be a alive today, and many more wouldn't have been wounded.

- Open Secrets: the NRA spent over $5MM in direct lobbying in 2017 alone (link)

- Open Secrets: 2016 election cycle NRA spent $3.2MM in direct lobbying, and a whopping $54.4 MM in outside spending (ads and other political activities intended to oppose any and all gun control measures) (link)

- Open Secrets comparison of gun nut spending vs. gun control spending (link):

The NRA has provided the lion's share of the funds, having contributed $22.9 million since 1989. During the 2016 election cycle, it further opened its coffers to make $54.3 million in outside expenditures, up from $27 million during the 2014 cycle.

Gun control interests, by comparison, have been a blip on the radar screen. They've given $4.2 million since 1989; 96 percent of their contributions to parties and candidates have gone to Democrats.
...
In the 2016 cycle, gun control groups accounted for $3 million in outside spending versus $54.9 million from gun rights organizations, including $54.3 million from the NRA.
​

- USA Today (link):

The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights organizations spent nearly $55 million in the 2016 election cycle to oppose or support candidates through independent spending ? nearly 19 times the amount spent by groups promoting gun restrictions, according to a tally be the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Trump was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the NRA's spending in the last election, with the group pumping more than $31 million into advertising to boost his candidacy and to attack his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. The spending was remarkable because the NRA was the largest, well-established outside group to back Trump's unorthodox campaign.
​

- Also from the same USA TOday article:

"So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior," Trump wrote Thursday morning on Twitter. "Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!"

...
What he didn't mention: In one of his early acts as president, Trump signed a measure passed by the Republican-led Congress that repealed an Obama-era regulation designed to block some mentally ill people from buying guns.

The reversal of the Obama regulation ? which would have required the Social Security Administration to report the records of some mentally ill beneficiaries to the FBI's background check system ? was one of just a string recent legislative victories for the powerful National Rifle Association."

​

Fuck you.

Once and for all:The Second Amendment

"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."
​

Gee, if they intended this to mean "no laws restricting arms whatsoever," they sure could've worded it differently... maybe move the part about "shall not be infringed" out of the subordinate clause? Or delete the whole part about a "well regulated militia" since according to Republicans that whole clause is more or less a typo and means nothing?

Also, I should be allowed to amass an army, complete with tanks, nuclear bombs, and stealth bombers since the government has all those, and my right to bear arms is the only thing protecting us from tyranny! Never mind that we didn't have "tyranny" from 1789 when the Constitution was ratified until now... if I can't keep an insane arsenal in my home, it's a real threat.

Aren't there any other places we can look to interpret that two lines of text our naive Founding Fathers left us with?

Sure... there are the Federalist Papers, which consist of 85 essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, intended to explain their rationale and reasoning for a constitution. As Hamilton and Madison were two of the primary drafters of the actual US Constitution, the Federalist Papers are widely considered to be an expanded commentary on the meaning and intent of the provisions of the Constitution.

Uh... so what do they say about my being able to buy whatever guns I want, whenever I want, and brag to the Libs about it?

Nothing. There is no single essay about arms, weapons, firearms, etc. There is one (1) essay (#29) out of the 85 about militias, and it serves as an answer to critics at the time who complained state militias would be a threat to liberty. Elsewhere in the Federalist papers, militias are mentioned in passing about a half dozen times, pertaining to the need for training them, or who would have the authority to call them out.

Not much in there for gun humpers to get excited about (if any of them ever actually read either the Constitution or the Federalist Papers... fat chance of that).

By the way, we HAVE well-regulated militias today... they're called the National Guard. You want to play with guns, moron? Join up. They'll take pretty much anyone.

so the federalist papers say nothing about our rights to own guns. do they say anything about the us not having those rights? any mention of curbs on those rights. do they say anything about banning citizens from wlowning specific types of weapons then or in the future? No, so your point about the federalist papers does nothing to support your position. thanks for yet another meaningless rant.

here's an article that summarizes why just about everything you say in these two posts is either stupid or a lie or both.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27236/kimmel-media-say-nra-buys-politicians-heres-why-ben-shapiro

 

[Spartanmack]

"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."

Our militias don't mean squat with regard to keeping our states free. How do you interpret an amendment that starts with a premise that is no longer true?

I guess first by saying the premise is not no longer true.

the fact that you or anyone else thinks citizens can no longer stop the government doesn't erase their rights. it also ignores the possibility that all or part of the military doesn't side with the populace, if we ever need to oppose government tyranny.

 

[Spartanmack]

First line from that article:



At the time champ posted it, it was very real because the group had made that claim to the AP. AP since corrected it once a proverbial shit storm came down on that group and they retracted their statement to the AP.

Calling the AP 'fake news' is retarded even by your standards.

it was never real. and where's his retraction?

I don't want to speak for jwl, but he doesn't appear to be calling the AP fake news, the content yes. and champ came here as fast as he could because it fit his agenda - again, never acknowledging the error, probably in the hopes others will continue to believe it. saying it was real at the time is a bullshit excuse.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Okay, there's two articles - the AP reports the guy lied to them and other news organizations - obviously The Daily Beast, who reported his claim, which turned out to be untrue.

I don't know what the AP reported if anything, prior to reporting that the guy had lied to them and other news outlets.

I virtually never read anything in the Daily Beast. I know a little something about their editorial policy because I am a student of media.

They don't even claim to do straight news reporting at all. Their claim is that they are a nonpartisan editorial identifier of abuse and hypocrisy. Because I virtually never read anything they publish I have no idea how non-partisan they are or they aren't.

It seems to me that more liberals on this board link to daily beast articles-well only liberals-but that isn't conclusive. Maybe they publish some articles that challenge left wing abuse and hypocrisy and conservatives on this board is simply never link to them, I don't know.

Another tenet of their editorial philosophy is they attempt to "break scoops."

It would follow that if that is your purpose, vetting and fact checking isn't going to be high on your list of priorities.

 

[turok]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27236/kimmel-media-say-nra-buys-politicians-heres-why-ben-shapiro

"Planned Parenthood, the nation?s leading abortion mil"

What a crock of BS, as abortion services are but a relatively small portion of what PP provided to both men and women, including physicals, prostate screening, mammograms, pap smears, STD/HIV testing, pancreatic and colon cancer screenings, and well baby care.

 

[tinselwolverine]

While there are some Liberals who believe that conservatives want to eliminate SS and Medicare, and some Republicans who would if they could, most liberals believe that most Republicans' goal is to privatize them both, including me.

I think "most" Republicans is an exaggeration.

The idea of a FICA and "opt out" option, in which people who chose to could have FICA withholdings directed to an investment account with pretty conservative investment restrictions, rather than into the general fund has been floated around, but hasn't had much traction.

 

[Michchamp]

"I haven't seen a German smile like that since..."

 

[Michchamp]

"I haven't seen a German smile like that since..."

oops, wrong thread

 

[tinselwolverine]

oops, wrong thread

You're actually posting on this thread NOW?