Today's Good Old American mass shooting brought to you by...

[Michchamp]

...
How many cases did that Texas real estate billionaire have before the Supreme Court over the decades? How come you're going after Thomas when there's zero evidence he and Crow are anything more than good friends but turning a blind eye to Sotomayor who took millions from a publishing company while that publishing company had multiple cases before the court without recusing herself - cases Gorsuch recused himself from for taking less than 1/5th the money Sotomayor got from them? That's some pretty selective outrage there.

The fact that anyone can see all these instances of corruption and want to give the eminently corruptible government officials more power is insane. It's clearly you who just can't let go of your preconceived ideas of who to blame.

Right, I'm sure Harlan Crow makes friends with just anybody, and in this case it just happened to be one who's a Supreme Court justice, and you can tell it was all innocent by the way they never disclose any of this even though they should have for years.

and there would not be any quid pro quo unless Harlan Crow - who bankrolls pro-business and Conservative to the tune of millions of dollars (and that's only what he's had to or been willing to disclose) had cases he was personally at stake in before the court?

GTFO... were you born yesterday?

The other Justices - Sotomayor included - closing ranks around disclosures was shameful as hell. They can all go.

Thomas is the worst of the bunch though.

 

[Spartanmack]

Right, I'm sure Harlan Crow makes friends with just anybody, and in this case it just happened to be one who's a Supreme Court justice, and you can tell it was all innocent by the way they never disclose any of this even though they should have for years.

and there would not be any quid pro quo unless Harlan Crow - who bankrolls pro-business and Conservative to the tune of millions of dollars (and that's only what he's had to or been willing to disclose) had cases he was personally at stake in before the court?

GTFO... were you born yesterday?

The other Justices - Sotomayor included - closing ranks around disclosures was shameful as hell. They can all go.

Thomas is the worst of the bunch though.

wow, that's some really convincing speculation. good job.

 

[Michchamp]

Sotomayor disclosed her book deals, I guess. And she actually DID write books, and not like just took millions from the publisher because they were friends, or whatever the fuck Crow & Thomas claim to be.

Not defending it, though it's weird for Conservatives to attack someone for actually earning money they worked for instead of just... taking handouts, like Thomas.

but in my mind her (and the rest of the court's) refusal to condemn Thomas, is a bigger problem.

Oh well.

I just brought this up to show the absurdity of claiming government power is the problem, not the people that can essentially buy and sell representatives, senators, and judges at all levels, up to and including the Supreme Court.

In another day or so, we should have another mass shooting, and this thread can get back on track. Not rooting for it, or anything like that, just pointing out the trend.

If the government DID want to seize people's guns, they can go ahead... any time now. I'd LIKE to see fewer mass shootings...

 

[Michchamp]

wow, that's some really convincing speculation. good job.

it's not speculation. You think Crow just put Thomas on his payroll, paid his kids tuition, let him use his private yachts and jets for months on end for fun? Because he's a nice guy?

Don Barzini: Times have changed. It's not like the Old Days, when we can do anything we want. A refusal is not the act of a friend. If Don Corleone had all the judges, and the politicians in New York, then he must share them, or let us others use them. He must let us draw the water from the well. Certainly he can present a bill for such services; after all... we are not Communists.

Vito Corleone (if written by Sprtanmack): "No, I'm just good friends with all those judges, and politicians. I like to spend time with them and go on fishing trips and stuff. It's not corruption."

(movie bombs, critics deride the absurd writing)

read the Pro Publica article I linked to... Thomas accepted gifts from Crow for at least 20 years and there were of course, wealthy and important people at many of the events or hotel stays Crow funded:

During just one trip in July 2017, Thomas? fellow guests included executives at Verizon and PricewaterhouseCoopers, major Republican donors and one of the leaders of the American Enterprise Institute, a pro-business conservative think tank, according to records reviewed by ProPublica. The painting of Thomas at Topridge shows him in conversation with Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society leader regarded as an architect of the Supreme Court?s recent turn to the right.​

this is WAY bigger than anything Sotomayor did

 

[Spartanmack]

Sotomayor disclosed her book deals, I guess. And she actually DID write books, and not like just took millions from the publisher because they were friends, or whatever the fuck Crow & Thomas claim to be.

Not defending it, though it's weird for Conservatives to attack someone for actually earning money they worked for instead of just... taking handouts, like Thomas.

No one is attacking Sotomayor for making money, this is just more of your BS. Thomas took a few trips WITH Crow because they're friends - there's no smoking gun here, just blowhards trying to make smoke and call it a fire because they hate Thomas - that's all you're doing.

but in my mind her (and the rest of the court's) refusal to condemn Thomas, is a bigger problem.

Oh well.

There's nothing for them to condemn, and there's especially nothign for those who took money from companies with business before the court who didn't recuse themselves to condemn.

I just brought this up to show the absurdity of claiming government power is the problem, not the people that can essentially buy and sell representatives, senators, and judges at all levels, up to and including the Supreme Court.

In another day or so, we should have another mass shooting, and this thread can get back on track. Not rooting for it, or anything like that, just pointing out the trend.

If the government DID want to seize people's guns, they can go ahead... any time now. I'd LIKE to see fewer mass shootings...

The only reason I responded to you is to point out the absurdity of your claim that it's not government that's the problem. You make reps, senator and judges at all levels less corruptible by taking away the incentive to corrupt them - you reduce their power and implement term limits, leave power in the hands of the people.

And no, the government can't just go ahead and seize people's guns any time now. They don't have that power, people have their rights, this right in particular as a check against their power. A big portion of Americans wouldn't stand for it - no one should.

And please get off your soapbox with the BS claims to the moral high ground. Everyone would like to see fewer mass shootings. I myself would also like to see fewer homicides in urban America which account for way more deaths than mass shootings. I just don't agree with you that taking away the rights of law abiding citizens will do that.

 

[lostleader]

this is bonkers.

I looked it up today, and sure enough gun sales have only risen over time, and the number of guns manufactured and gun manufacturers have also risen, significantly, over the last few decades. (there's a lot of information out there about this; abc news has a summary from 2022)

if the federal government actually wanted to disarm the people, when did they decide that? don't you think they'd actually try to LOWER those numbers first?

"Hey, let's take everybody's guns. But first, let's maximize the number of guns out there and make this already difficult task even more difficult."

This logic has one MAJOR flaw.

It assumes that the federal government is smart, and Id say over the past century or so, they have proven they are not. Democrat, Republican, Independent, doesn't matter when all of those elected officials get together, they are dumber than a bag of hammered dicks.

Individually, there may be some. Regardless of which side they sit on, some of those individuals are smart. But as a whole, they are all stupid. Tommy Lee Jones has a great quote in Men In Black about the person and a group of people and I think it fits our government perfectly.

Paraphrasing, its something like this. The person is smart but a group of people are dumb, irrational, and panic filled. (Im to lazy to look up the exact verbiage)

 

[sggatecl]

Paraphrasing, its something like this. The person is smart but a group of people are dumb, irrational, and panic filled. (Im to lazy to look up the exact verbiage)

~ Tommie Lee Jones in the 1997 classic 'Men in Black'

 

[tinselwolverine]

This logic has one MAJOR flaw.

It assumes that the federal government is smart, and Id say over the past century or so, they have proven they are not. Democrat, Republican, Independent, doesn't matter when all of those elected officials get together, they are dumber than a bag of hammered dicks.

Individually, there may be some. Regardless of which side they sit on, some of those individuals are smart. But as a whole, they are all stupid. Tommy Lee Jones has a great quote in Men In Black about the person and a group of people and I think it fits our government perfectly.

Paraphrasing, its something like this. The person is smart but a group of people are dumb, irrational, and panic filled. (Im to lazy to look up the exact verbiage)

Scrub to @2:47

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pRIIw...sIGlzIHNtYXJ0IGJ1dCB0aGUgZ3JvdXAgaXMgZHVtYg==

I got your six.

 

[byco42]

this is bonkers.

It's bonkers that our government and its alphabet intelligence agencies are in the business of conditioning us to compliance and programming us to do its dirty work.

Do you think for a second that this program is dormant? MK Ultra

If so, you are walking around blind minus the cane. A casual review of their nefarious activities will lead you down a rabbit hole from which you can't back out. Think beyond what you think. I always figured you to be more inquisitive then you apparently demonstrate.

I looked it up today, and sure enough gun sales have only risen over time, and the number of guns manufactured and gun manufacturers have also risen, significantly, over the last few decades. (there's a lot of information out there about this; abc news has a summary from 2022)

if the federal government actually wanted to disarm the people, when did they decide that? don't you think they'd actually try to LOWER those numbers first?

"Hey, let's take everybody's guns. But first, let's maximize the number of guns out there and make this already difficult task even more difficult."

There have been more guns than people in the US for a long time. And disarming the public isn't about confiscation of firearms. It's about dissolving our resolve to self-determination. When the time comes, I think that the vast majority will surrender their firearms voluntarily, after it becomes a felony to own them. Who remains armed, then, will be criminals. I'm surprised you didn't make this same conclusion.

Now you're trying to compare alcohol abuse with shootings... I don't know what to say.

Sure alcohol abuse is a problem, but it's not like I can go kill a dozen people on the spur of the moment with a case of beer.

You missed my point entirely. No point in restating it.

And your fear of the government... odd you don't fear the people pulling the strings of it, who can do it with impunity, even in cases like this, when the corruption is openly known and exposed, and efforts to combat it get no traction.

Fuck, a billionaire real estate heir (& Nazi sympathizer?) in Texas, can openly own a Supreme Court judge for decades, and no one in government can seemingly touch either of them, and you think GOVERNMENT POWER is the problem here?

it's like youre finally starting to come around to admitting there are fundamental flaws in our society, but you just can't let go of your preconceived ideas of who to blame.

The bank robbers are fleeing with giant sacks of money, bills blowing in the wind, right in front of your face, and you're like "Now, hold on, maybe it's those dang kids skateboarding on my sidewalk..."

How you think I missed the connection between billionaires and government "running things" is rather negligent on your part, given the content I've posted here.

The fundamental flaw in our society is that we think we are gods. Our that some people do. And they think we are their personal serfs. MC, wake the hell up. You're slumbering.

 

[Michchamp]

This logic has one MAJOR flaw.

It assumes that the federal government is smart, and Id say over the past century or so, they have proven they are not. Democrat, Republican, Independent, doesn't matter when all of those elected officials get together, they are dumber than a bag of hammered dicks.

Individually, there may be some. Regardless of which side they sit on, some of those individuals are smart. But as a whole, they are all stupid. Tommy Lee Jones has a great quote in Men In Black about the person and a group of people and I think it fits our government perfectly.

Paraphrasing, its something like this. The person is smart but a group of people are dumb, irrational, and panic filled. (Im to lazy to look up the exact verbiage)

Huh.

so the government is too dumb to realize it's harder to seize more guns than fewer guns, because the government is a group of people, and groups of people are dumb.

But the government is not too dumb to engage in a decades (?) long conspiracy to cause mass shootings to eventually give them a political basis to seize all guns?

Let's flesh this theory out more... so if a group of people is dumb, but a single person is smart, would one McDonald's burger flipper be smarter than all the physicists working on the Manhattan Project?

How did the government manage to successfully theorize the concept of a nuclear
reaction, enriching the necessary amount of the key uranium isotope, design and build the bomb components, and successfully test it?

Why didn't they just pick one guy at random to do all that, if Tommy Lee Jones' (or more likely, whatever scriptwriter concocted that half-baked theory to explain why the Men In Black couldn't reveal the existence of aliens to the general public) theory is accurate?

 

[Michchamp]

Scrub to @2:47

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pRIIw...sIGlzIHNtYXJ0IGJ1dCB0aGUgZ3JvdXAgaXMgZHVtYg==

I got your six.

great film, but I wouldn't base my understanding of how the world works on it.

(sorry)

 

[Spartanmack]

Huh.

so the government is too dumb to realize it's harder to seize more guns than fewer guns, because the government is a group of people, and groups of people are dumb.

But the government is not too dumb to engage in a decades (?) long conspiracy to cause mass shootings to eventually give them a political basis to seize all guns?

Let's flesh this theory out more... so if a group of people is dumb, but a single person is smart, would one McDonald's burger flipper be smarter than all the physicists working on the Manhattan Project?

How did the government manage to successfully theorize the concept of a nuclear
reaction, enriching the necessary amount of the key uranium isotope, design and build the bomb components, and successfully test it?

Why didn't they just pick one guy at random to do all that, if Tommy Lee Jones' (or more likely, whatever scriptwriter concocted that half-baked theory to explain why the Men In Black couldn't reveal the existence of aliens to the general public) theory is accurate?

Average intelligence is based on a pretty wide distribution - a difficult concept to grasp for those of you in the far left tail of that distribution but no, the fry cook is probably not going to be smarter than a group of physicists.

 

[Spartanmack]

great film, but I wouldn't base my understanding of how the world works on it.

(sorry)

Yeah, we know your understanding of how the world works is based on a theory that?s all but proved itself to be a fiction (and a complete disaster responsible for upwards of 100mm deaths in the 20th century) - an even greater fiction than the one in MIB. I heard the original MIB script was going to be based on a society where socialism worked but it was too outrageous so they went with aliens among us instead.

 

[Michchamp]

Yeah, we know your understanding of how the world works is based on a theory that?s all but proved itself to be a fiction (and a complete disaster responsible for upwards of 100mm deaths in the 20th century) - an even greater fiction than the one in MIB. I heard the original MIB script was going to be based on a society where socialism worked but it was too outrageous so they went with aliens among us instead.

Yeah, sure.

BTW, do you have any more analogies about how alcohol is as dangerous as assault rifles, because a person could theoretically kill dozens in a drunk driving accident, or more likely accidentS?

that honestly made me laugh yesterday. Would you need to get a new car after each drunk driving crash that killed someone, or just get lucky and hope you can create one massive car accident?

You'd probably also need to wear some sort of protective body armor to
make sure you also didn't die in each drunk driving crash while on a rampage.

Seems like a not-well-thought-out way to kill a lot of people, but... you came up with it, and you're a genius.

 

[mhughes0021]

Just give an ar-15 to every kid in school. It's a constitutional right.... you shouldn't be able to age discriminate. Then they can defend themselves and we can match the Chinese in numbers when they attack us... without having to raise military spending! I'm a fucking genius. I just solved the mass shooter issue, Chinese issue AND the budget crisis in one solution.

 

[lostleader]

Huh.

so the government is too dumb to realize it's harder to seize more guns than fewer guns, because the government is a group of people, and groups of people are dumb.

But the government is not too dumb to engage in a decades (?) long conspiracy to cause mass shootings to eventually give them a political basis to seize all guns?

Let's flesh this theory out more... so if a group of people is dumb, but a single person is smart, would one McDonald's burger flipper be smarter than all the physicists working on the Manhattan Project?

How did the government manage to successfully theorize the concept of a nuclear
reaction, enriching the necessary amount of the key uranium isotope, design and build the bomb components, and successfully test it?

Why didn't they just pick one guy at random to do all that, if Tommy Lee Jones' (or more likely, whatever scriptwriter concocted that half-baked theory to explain why the Men In Black couldn't reveal the existence of aliens to the general public) theory is accurate?

Im sure you are a decent dude, but I attempt to never argue with an idiot. They only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

My comment was more of a jab, and not to be taken to the most literal extreme. I will recuse myself from this conversation.

 

[lostleader]

Scrub to @2:47

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pRIIw...sIGlzIHNtYXJ0IGJ1dCB0aGUgZ3JvdXAgaXMgZHVtYg==

I got your six.

I appreciate it Sir

 

[tinselwolverine]

I appreciate it Sir

Nice.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yeah, sure.

BTW, do you have any more analogies about how alcohol is as dangerous as assault rifles, because a person could theoretically kill dozens in a drunk driving accident, or more likely accidentS?

that honestly made me laugh yesterday. Would you need to get a new car after each drunk driving crash that killed someone, or just get lucky and hope you can create one massive car accident?

You'd probably also need to wear some sort of protective body armor to
make sure you also didn't die in each drunk driving crash while on a rampage.

Seems like a not-well-thought-out way to kill a lot of people, but... you came up with it, and you're a genius.

That wasn?t an analogy moron. It was a refutation of your foolish statement that drinking to excess isn?t a danger to others. It probably doesn?t seem well thought out to you because I didn?t say anything like what you?re claiming. This is just more of your disingenuous revising what I said to what you wish I said then arguing against it. In other words, just another strawman. The point stands - alcohol kills far more people than guns and alcohol is involved in about half of all gun murders - but AR-15s which are used in less than 3% of all gun murders are the problem. Way to think that one out.

And since you bring it up, I didn?t come up with the idea. People don?t even need to be drunk to use a car to intentionally kill people. I can think of 3 instances off the top of my head where it was done - the U-Haul driver in Brooklyn, the Christmas parade in Wisconsin and just the other day in Texas a driver killed 8 people plowing through a bus stop in an SUV. It's happened twice in the UK fairly recently and it's happened a few times in Israel. I'm sure if I did a Google search, I could find several more. Still, that has to be less than 3% of vehicular deaths, but we probably should take a serious look at banning cars - this should probably be at the top of your list for why we need more high speed rail.

 

[Michchamp]

That wasn?t an analogy moron. It was a refutation of your foolish statement that drinking to excess isn?t a danger to others. It probably doesn?t seem well thought out to you because I didn?t say anything like what you?re claiming. This is just more of your disingenuous revising what I said to what you wish I said then arguing against it. In other words, just another strawman. The point stands - alcohol kills far more people than guns and alcohol is involved in about half of all gun murders - but AR-15s which are used in less than 3% of all gun murders are the problem. Way to think that one out.

And since you bring it up, I didn?t come up with the idea. People don?t even need to be drunk to use a car to intentionally kill people. I can think of 3 instances off the top of my head where it was done - the U-Haul driver in Brooklyn, the Christmas parade in Wisconsin and just the other day in Texas a driver killed 8 people plowing through a bus stop in an SUV. It's happened twice in the UK fairly recently and it's happened a few times in Israel. I'm sure if I did a Google search, I could find several more. Still, that has to be less than 3% of vehicular deaths, but we probably should take a serious look at banning cars - this should probably be at the top of your list for why we need more high speed rail.

well, we were talking about alcohol, not car accidents per se, but go ahead and ban cars too, along with handguns & assault rifles. I'm all for that.

I'd prefer to not have my household have to have two car payments (~$450 each), $200 insurance each month, $250 or so for gasoline, $100 for oil changes... plus the significant risk of dying in a car accident.

$50/month per person for a rail & bus pass is a much better deal. I'd love to have an extra ~$13,000 on hand at the end of the year