The Maelstrom of Violence

[Odin]

Journalist Who Exposed The Racist Creator Of Trump’s CNN Tweet Gets Death Threats

[pbrower2a]

(07-04-2017, 02:18 PM)Odin Wrote: Journalist Who Exposed The Racist Creator Of Trump’s CNN Tweet Gets Death Threats

The news media can show some spine and expose anyone who threatens journalists. A free press essential to the preservation of a Free Nation implies that journalists have a reasonable right to protection from physical threats . To that end the media have the obligation to expose anyone who seeks to intimidate journalists with threats to themselves and loved ones.

Criminal deeds have no right to privacy. The Internet has been understood to be a wide-open frontier, much like the legendary Wild West... But even in the Wild West there were some rules -- statutory laws, of course. (Note that in the 'Wild West' there were places like Nebraska and Utah where there was little tolerance for personal violence and other crime).

We are beginning to realize under the Trump Presidency how shaky liberty can be. Liberty itself depends upon some fundamental decencies that do not exist under tyranny. One is a general rejection of violence. So someone exposes scummy behavior by an allegedly-anonymous creep? When the politicians and their tawdriest enablers decide what the media say, we no longer have freedom.

[Eric the Green]

When moderate-conservative Justice Kennedy retires after 2018, what will a majority movement-conservative Supreme Court do to our rights to a free press and freedom of assembly?

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-04-2017, 11:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The only "ad in question" I see in this thread is the one posted by Odin. I don't see any facts in that ad; it's just pro-Trump lies and propaganda, and allusions to stand with the gun toters as the guarantors of "freedom." Trump's version of "freedom" seems a lot like Mussolini's to me (Trump is Mussolini's reincarnation, according to my "magical" way of thinking)

I don't have to turn anything into a personal attack on me by you, if that's just what it was in the first place. Hint: my "demonizing" of opponents is not a personal attack on you. You saying I always disregard facts and say all who disagree with me must be subdued, is exaggerated, and thus a personal attack on me. It just shows again you don't live up to what you say people here should do.

There's no use asking me to examine or debate something you already KNOW that I won't, and then complain I don't regard facts. You are just setting yourself up for frustration and anger at me. Just be wiser and let it go, and admit that Eric is not going to agree with Bob on everything. No-one will agree with you or me on everything. It will brighten your day

The NRA ad which Odin posted was quoted above my comment that the NRA was unusually truthful in their facts before moving to the realm of values, fear and violence.  I also contrasted the NRA's opening facts with the late night comic's ability and habit of exaggerating, lying, humiliating, and calling it humor so they can get away with it.  Your response a few post down was to call NRA liars, and late night comics truthful.  I assumed you were contributing to the thread and directly challenging my post.  I still believe so, although you refuse to revisit or give any credence to your claim of a lying NRA.

Now if you're going to directly challenge me, expect an exchange.  If you are thinking about making claims without being willing to back them up, don't.  In the spirit of if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen, if you can not, will not, won't, or otherwise are unable to discuss the NRA, don't express arbitrary unsustainable false opinions about the NRA.  The goal should not be to slander and lie about groups we don't like.  True criticisms you are willing to defend, sure, post away.  The NRA are anything but perfect.  Bald faced lies you can't back up, no.

Otherwise, you have boasted about being able to listen.  Live up to the boast.  I'll be pleased if you manage the trick.

And, correct, we aren't going to agree on everything, but we should be willing to back up our assertions.  If you make false claims you cannot or won't defend, don't expect me to walk away and let your lies stand unchallenged.

[Eric the Green]

(07-04-2017, 10:12 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-04-2017, 11:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The only "ad in question" I see in this thread is the one posted by Odin. I don't see any facts in that ad; it's just pro-Trump lies and propaganda, and allusions to stand with the gun toters as the guarantors of "freedom." Trump's version of "freedom" seems a lot like Mussolini's to me (Trump is Mussolini's reincarnation, according to my "magical" way of thinking)

I don't have to turn anything into a personal attack on me by you, if that's just what it was in the first place. Hint: my "demonizing" of opponents is not a personal attack on you. You saying I always disregard facts and say all who disagree with me must be subdued, is exaggerated, and thus a personal attack on me. It just shows again you don't live up to what you say people here should do.

There's no use asking me to examine or debate something you already KNOW that I won't, and then complain I don't regard facts. You are just setting yourself up for frustration and anger at me. Just be wiser and let it go, and admit that Eric is not going to agree with Bob on everything. No-one will agree with you or me on everything. It will brighten your day

The NRA ad which Odin posted was quoted above my comment that the NRA was unusually truthful in their facts before moving to the realm of values, fear and violence.  I also contrasted the NRA's opening facts with the late night comic's ability and habit of exaggerating, lying, humiliating, and calling it humor so they can get away with it.  Your response a few post down was to call NRA liars, and late night comics truthful.  I assumed you were contributing to the thread and directly challenging my post.  I still believe so, although you refuse to revisit or give any credence to your claim of a lying NRA.

Anyone who listens to the late night comics I mentioned knows that they recount a lot of facts. The humor just makes the horrible situation we live in politically go down a bit easier. It's tough to spread the humor around to all sides, when the facts are so one-sided regarding who is ridiculous. But they try.

Quote:Now if you're going to directly challenge me, expect an exchange.  If you are thinking about making claims without being willing to back them up, don't.  In the spirit of if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen, if you can not, will not, won't, or otherwise are unable to discuss the NRA, don't express arbitrary unsustainable false opinions about the NRA.  The goal should not be to slander and lie about groups we don't like.  True criticisms you are willing to defend, sure, post away.  The NRA are anything but perfect.  Bald faced lies you can't back up, no.

The NRA is unspeakable. (and again I speak of the leaders and spokespeople, not all the members)

There was no challenge to you from me about the NRA. Nor did I discuss or even read Odin's link. You brought them up, dredging up the fact that I disagreed with you long ago about that subject.

Quote:Otherwise, you have boasted about being able to listen.  Live up to the boast.  I'll be pleased if you manage the trick.

And, correct, we aren't going to agree on everything, but we should be willing to back up our assertions.  If you make false claims you cannot or won't defend, don't expect me to walk away and let your lies stand unchallenged.

Do as you wish. I'm not going to beat dead horses though. The NRA is a dead horse. I will do nothing but insult them, if I say anything at all about them. Another name for them is "the gun lobby." That's all they fuckin' are.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-04-2017, 11:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Anyone who listens to the late night comics I mentioned knows that they recount a lot of facts. The humor just makes the horrible situation we live in politically go down a bit easier. It's tough to spread the humor around to all sides, when the facts are so one-sided regarding who is ridiculous. But they try.

I find a lot of them spin way blue, just as many pundit radio hosts spin way red. They are targeting a specific and very blue audience. Anyone attempting honest evaluation of the world has to try at least to consider the source. Anyway, as good a warm fuzzy feeling as you get from stuff spun heavily blue, imagine that someone red leaning might respond as you would to pundit radio.

(07-04-2017, 11:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The NRA is unspeakable. (and again I speak of the leaders and spokespeople, not all the members)

How would you know? You have demonstrated that you aren't listening. Your position is one of willful ignorance.

(07-04-2017, 11:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There was no challenge to you from me about the NRA. You brought them up, dredging up the fact that I disagreed with you long ago about that subject.

You directly conflicted with my post, falsely, without backing up the false claims, just a few posts down. Expect rebuttal.

(07-04-2017, 11:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Do as you wish. I'm not going to beat dead horses though. The NRA is a dead horse. I will do nothing but insult them, if I say anything at all about them. Another name for them is "the gun lobby." That's all they fuckin' are.

If you lie and refuse to defend your lies, expect rebuttal.

They aren't my favorite people either, but they have a perspective that should be understood and is part of the question. Insulting people and lying about those you disagree with without being aware of their positions or reading what they are truly saying is not productive.

[Eric the Green]

(07-04-2017, 11:52 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-04-2017, 11:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Anyone who listens to the late night comics I mentioned knows that they recount a lot of facts. The humor just makes the horrible situation we live in politically go down a bit easier. It's tough to spread the humor around to all sides, when the facts are so one-sided regarding who is ridiculous. But they try.

I find a lot of them spin way blue, just as many pundit radio hosts spin way red. They are targeting a specific and very blue audience. Anyone attempting honest evaluation of the world has to try at least to consider the source. Anyway, as good a warm fuzzy feeling as you get from stuff spun heavily blue, imagine that someone red leaning might respond as you would to pundit radio.

No thank you. No, the situations are not equivalent.

But yes, they are human beings. So, there's the light of truth in them, somewhere. Somewhere, over the rainbow?

Quote:If you lie and refuse to defend your lies, expect rebuttal.

They aren't my favorite people either, but they have a perspective that should be understood and is part of the question. Insulting people and lying about those you disagree with without being aware of their positions or reading what they are truly saying is not productive.

But, I didn't really say anything but insults, and so I didn't say anything to rebut; therefore, there's no argument, and therefore, I didn't lie. Magical thinking?

[Eric the Green]

While Bob complains about late night comics like John Oliver, the reactionaries are buying up our local TV stations. So the GOPPERS and Trumpistas will soon not only own the presidency, congress, and state governments, and the Supreme Court, but also our media. Thank God there's a few truthful voices around like John Oliver! To compare them to shitshooters like the NRA or trash like Rush and Hannity is sacrilege! This country is so far right (and owned by it) that the idea that there's any balance between blue and red in the media is ludicrous!

[tg63]

I came across an interesting article on the weekend & immediately thought of this thread ... another indicator perhaps ...

How Liberal Portland Became America’s Most Politically Violent City
And it’s about to get worse, say protesters on both sides.

[Eric the Green]

From Sen. Chris Murphy:

Eric -

We have to talk about this video the NRA released last week.

As an organization, the NRA likes to claim that they are “freedom’s safest place,” that the “Second Amendment is there to protect the First.” This video exposes those talking points for the hollow slogans they have always been.

Think about the top “villains” in their video: the press and people protesting the president. This video is a hairs breadth away from asking NRA members to take up arms against those who are exercising the very First Amendment rights they claim to defend.

Let me be more to the point: the NRA exists to sell guns. They are an extension of the gun industry. All the mass shootings, suicides, domestic violence fatalities, and accidental deaths of children are just the cost of doing business for them.

For years, the NRA all but said that President Obama was coming to take away people’s guns. Sales skyrocketed as a result. But now, their guy is in office and fewer and fewer people are buying guns.

The NRA now has to find new ways of scaring people into buying guns. This is what this video is all about. And we have to respond.

Every best wish,

Chris Murphy
U.S. Senator, Connecticut

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-05-2017, 01:19 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: While Bob complains about late night comics like John Oliver, the reactionaries are buying up our local TV stations. So the GOPPERS and Trumpistas will soon not only own the presidency, congress, and state governments, and the Supreme Court, but also our media. Thank God there's a few truthful voices around like John Oliver! To compare them to shitshooters like the NRA or trash like Rush and Hannity is sacrilege! This country is so far right (and owned by it) that the idea that there's any balance between blue and red in the media is ludicrous!

Tis easy to compare.  Lots of groups will seek an audience of one world view or another, mostly blue or red.  They have an agenda in mind, and push the agenda.  Part of what they are doing is disparaging the opposite group.  The NRA, John Oliver, other late night ‘comics’, Sinclair ‘news’, Fox ‘news’, the red pundit radio industry, and others have taken a side, adopted a style, and push it for all they’ve got.

Oliver is very likely correct that Sinclair is spinning and propagandizing.  I won’t go beyond that without actually seeing some Sinclair broadcasts.  He uses a lot of truth, but all of the above propaganda groups will base their propaganda on fact.  On the other hand, the late night comic school of propaganda can go fact free and get away with it.  I sincerely doubt the existence of sunglasses wearing coyotes in the business of selling babies as a food product.  If a late night comic wants to jazz his audience by disparaging reds, flush the facts, he will make up anything he likes, lie with impunity.  Sure, much of it it is so off the wall you can’t take it seriously, but being on the receiving ends of that sort of crazy made up stuff day after day can tick people off.

The new media has so many channels available that if you want to immerse yourself in one world view you can.  I will daydream about the good old days, when news departments separated themselves from the entertainment departments, when news was kept separate from opinion, and when it wasn’t a profitable gambit for a station to seek out an audience with a specific political alignment.  Just a daydream, though.  The genie is out of his bottle.  Most any station, group or style of presentation can get caught up in extreme partisanship.  The NRA did.  Oliver did.  Sinclair did.  Lots of folks doing it.  I don’t expect it to go away.

How does a viewer respond?  Does one buy into one world view without question while rejecting the opposite blindly and ignorantly?  Or does one became aware of the spin on both sides and attempt to take the spin into account?  On the NRA ad, I’ll acknowledge the truth that blue folks did as said, but be very dubious that the average blue fits the impression the NRA gave or that the typical person is apt to run into the rare extremists the NRA portrayed.  Thus, their end point that everyone should buy guns and be ready for the unfortunate necessity of shooting liberals is absurdly dubious.  In the same way, I’m dubious about both Sinclair and Oliver.  They are spinning.  They have agendas.  They have target audiences.  What they all lack is integrity and respect.  They are doing what they can to demonize, in both recent senses of the word.

I for one will strive to acknowledge the facts and the values derived from the without becoming a hater, without insulting and falsely portraying whole cultures.

Hey, I think everyone has figured out I’m not a Trump fan.  Still, when he claims some aspects of the media are out to get him, I sympathize and agree.

[Eric the Green]

(07-05-2017, 02:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-05-2017, 01:19 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: While Bob complains about late night comics like John Oliver, the reactionaries are buying up our local TV stations. So the GOPPERS and Trumpistas will soon not only own the presidency, congress, and state governments, and the Supreme Court, but also our media. Thank God there's a few truthful voices around like John Oliver! To compare them to shitshooters like the NRA or trash like Rush and Hannity is sacrilege! This country is so far right (and owned by it) that the idea that there's any balance between blue and red in the media is ludicrous!

Tis easy to compare.  Lots of groups will seek an audience of one world view or another, mostly blue or red.  They have an agenda in mind, and push the agenda.  Part of what they are doing is disparaging the opposite group.  The NRA, John Oliver, other late night ‘comics’, Sinclair ‘news’, Fox ‘news’, the red pundit radio industry, and others have taken a side, adopted a style, and push it for all they’ve got.

Welcome to the 4T. It is necessary.

Quote:Oliver is very likely correct that Sinclair is spinning and propagandizing.  I won’t go beyond that without actually seeing some Sinclair broadcasts.  He uses a lot of truth, but all of the above propaganda groups will base their propaganda on fact.  On the other hand, the late night comic school of propaganda can go fact free and get away with it.  I sincerely doubt the existence of sunglasses wearing coyotes in the business of selling babies as a food product.  If a late night comic wants to jazz his audience by disparaging reds, flush the facts, he will make up anything he likes, lie with impunity.  Sure, much of it it is so off the wall you can’t take it seriously, but being on the receiving ends of that sort of crazy made up stuff day after day can tick people off.

He doesn't lie. He is magnificent. What he "makes up" is humor, which is honorable, and an honorable tradition, and necessary; and sometimes directed at liberals too. There needs to be someone putting out the facts, and making them easy to choke down. Blue = facts, Red = prejudice. Besides your (mistaken to some degree, IMO) view of gun rights and the NRA, I doubt you can even suggest an instance where the "red" side is based on facts.

Quote:The new media has so many channels available that if you want to immerse yourself in one world view you can.  I will daydream about the good old days, when news departments separated themselves from the entertainment departments, when news was kept separate from opinion, and when it wasn’t a profitable gambit for a station to seek out an audience with a specific political alignment.  Just a daydream, though.  The genie is out of his bottle.  Most any station, group or style of presentation can get caught up in extreme partisanship.  The NRA did.  Oliver did.  Sinclair did.  Lots of folks doing it.  I don’t expect it to go away.

How does a viewer respond?  Does one buy into one world view without question while rejecting the opposite blindly and ignorantly?  Or does one became aware of the spin on both sides and attempt to take the spin into account?  On the NRA ad, I’ll acknowledge the truth that blue folks did as said, but be very dubious that the average blue fits the impression the NRA gave or that the typical person is apt to run into the rare extremists the NRA portrayed.  Thus, their end point that everyone should buy guns and be ready for the unfortunate necessity of shooting liberals is absurdly dubious.  In the same way, I’m dubious about both Sinclair and Oliver.  They are spinning.  They have agendas.  They have target audiences.  What they all lack is integrity and respect.  They are doing what they can to demonize, in both recent senses of the word.

To compare Oliver with the NRA, is to go crazy.

Quote:I for one will strive to acknowledge the facts and the values derived from the without becoming a hater, without insulting and falsely portraying whole cultures.

But insulting others you disagree with on a forum is OK, though?

Quote:Hey, I think everyone has figured out I’m not a Trump fan.  Still, when he claims some aspects of the media are out to get him, I sympathize and agree.

They SHOULD be out to get him (not violently, as HE wants to do to his protesters). So should every thinking and feeling American. Drump is a disgrace, in every way.

The Republicans should go the way of the dodo bird, the same way the Whigs did in the previous domestic-centered 4T. Our whole current party system needs to go, in fact. It might. Our elected-king system needs to go too. Most democracies are parliamentary, because it's more democratic, and because it works. Our USA first and most-ancient democratic system is also the most outdated.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-06-2017, 11:37 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: To compare Oliver with the NRA, is to go crazy.

This is sort of your tradition. Anyone who disagrees with you must be evil, insane, brainwashed, stupid or otherwise subhuman, and to be subdued or defeated. I disagree. There are solid reasons for existence of most major worldviews, and a holder of that worldview will cling to it when others may have moved on.

Oliver is an extreme partisan. He has an audience and an agenda. So does the NRA. Both are very very biased towards their particular extreme positions. It may be that as you are blindly loyal to one of these positions you are incapable of viewing the situation objectively.

May be? Did I word that too weakly?

[Eric the Green]

(07-06-2017, 01:48 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-06-2017, 11:37 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: To compare Oliver with the NRA, is to go crazy.

This is sort of your tradition. Anyone who disagrees with you must be evil, insane, brainwashed, stupid or otherwise subhuman, and to be subdued or defeated. I disagree. There are solid reasons for existence of most major worldviews, and a holder of that worldview will cling to it when others may have moved on.

Oliver is an extreme partisan. He has an audience and an agenda. So does the NRA. Both are very very biased towards their particular extreme positions. It may be that as you are blindly loyal to one of these positions you are incapable of viewing the situation objectively.

May be? Did I word that too weakly?

NRA is not a world view. It is a gun lobby (with various other functions as X_AD_84 said). You, on the other hand, have a world view (or something) that says it's good to insult people on a forum, but not to speak the truth about people who have out of date worldviews, prejudices and misinformation. As you have about Mr. Oliver and the NRA.

It is not wrong to be an extreme partisan, if that happens to be where the truth is at the time. Being in the middle of current views is no virtue at all.

[Eric the Green]

Who is crazy? Maybe it takes an extreme partisan blue to know just how crazy the extreme right wing is.

The Right's NPR Freakout Shows a Political Movement Consumed by Insanity

What more do you need to understand just how deranged these people are?
JUSTIN ROSARIO
JUL 5, 2017
https://thedailybanter.com/2017/07/right...-be-crazy/


But he can't understand why America's political discourse is so angry!

By now, you've surely heard about the ridiculous reaction of Trumpsters to NPR tweeting out the entire Declaration of Independence on the Fourth of July. If not, enjoy your bliss for a few more seconds (and I'm still calling you Shirley):

Some supporters of President Donald Trump didn’t recognize one of the nation’s founding documents and accused the broadcaster of inciting violence and even revolution.

You can hop on Twitter to read some of the angry comments and the numerous mocking responses because it's pretty funny on its face, but the humor of the whole thing is not what caught my attention. What leapt out at me is the fact that Trump supporters are so detached from reality that they literally thought NPR was openly calling for a violent overthrow of the President of the United States.

NPR. National Public Radio. A radio station that is so uncontroversial that when you look up the definition of "Staid", you find NPR's logo. This is who Trumpsters seriously thought was advocating for violence. NPR. The radio version of vanilla. This isn't to say they're boring but they go out of their way to avoid sensationalism as a matter of course.

I know I bang this gong a lot but it's vital that we understand the mindset of the right wing. Here, in the real world, the idea of NPR calling for civil war is simply unthinkable. You might as well believe Sesame Street will air an episode of Big Bird and Elmo throwing Molotov cocktails at the police. Perhaps Abby Cadabby could summon the anti-Christ while she's at it.

But that's the real world and Trump voters no longer live here. They live in an alternate reality where the mainstream media is run by an evil cabal of Jews/Communists/Liberals and their only goal is to overthrow America.

In this fantasy world, everyone is an enemy and everything they say is a lie. Up until January 20th, 2017, the economy was on the brink of collapse. Millions of illegal immigrants were swarming the border every year, bringing crime, disease and drugs with them. Muslim terrorists were in every city, ready to strike at a moment's notice. And Obamacare was destroying the lives of millions of God-fearing Americans.

Worst of all, the black Kenyan Muslim homosexual president was doing all of this on purpose because he hated America because something something "anti-colonial mindset."

You cannot reach out and find common ground with people who do not acknowledge reality in any way. There is literally no amount of evidence that can persuade them once Fox News, AM Hate Radio and Breitbart sell them the lie. Every word Trump speaks is infallible and if he directly contradicts himself, the fake new media is guilty of taking his statements out of context.

The right has become so firmly trapped in a bubble of bullshit that they truly and honestly believe compromise is tantamount to treason. That the left is dedicated to the literally destruction of the right. That "white genocide" is real even if they don't yet fully use the language of the white nationalist alt-right.

If I sound alarmist, you're not paying close enough attention to the right. When Trump won his illegitimate presidency, they became violent because they were empowered. What do you think is going to happen when they lose their tenuous grip on that power in 2018 and 2020? Do you think they're going to sit down at the grown up table and talk? Or do you think they're going to get the guns they've been stockpiling for years and lash out at their "oppressors?"

Sure, it seems like only a small group of them are so far gone that NPR strikes them as a hotbed of radical insurrection, but it speaks to the larger trend of American conservatives being completely unable to distinguish paranoid fantasy from reality. With Trump and the right's media machine egging them on, we're one 9/11 event away from roving bands of "patriots" taking to the streets to "save" America from the evil leftists.

I wonder what color their shirts will be? I hear brown is a nice color...

[Bob Butler 54]

Just for laughs, I confirmed a memory of red beliefs that NPR is a biased blue news source.  Here's a Daily Signal piece saying that Trump Should End Government Funding of NPR’s Biased News  The Republicans did cut a large part of NPR's subsidy a while back.  NPR just has an urban academic attitude which demands they tell tales from that perspective.  Mind you, they may have the least arrogant least in-your-face presentation style imaginable for a biased spinning group, but they're still a biased spinning group. (This isn't to say the Daily Signal doesn't spin as well.)

A brief visit to The Daily Banter's home page shows them to be a biased blue partisan web site as well.  Your quoting them is similar to someone red leaning quoting Breitbart.  There are some sites that are so biased that those of opposite spin will automatically reject anything they say.  You, naturally, would accept an extreme blue spinning site without question.  Me, I'll watch for spin in a site as innocuous as NPR.

You are not going to prove that anyone supporting blue side is unbiased by quoting biased blue sites.  Oh, biased sites can convince the already convinced.  They are also going to cause allergic reactions to those convinced the other way, while everybody bases propaganda on a base of truth.  You can quote a blue spun site saying that the red spun site is spun, but that doesn't begin to suggest that there aren't spun sites out there, and it is not hard to find a red spun site saying that the blue spun site is spun.  

My viewpoint suggests that finding a site that isn't spinning is the hard task, and it is quite possible to compare and contrast how various sites spin.  The country is so divided and partisan that it is nigh on improper to not take a side and spin.  How can one not have an opinion about the country's mess?

But I'm not going to convince someone who is so blue partisan that he sees blue as true.

I am dismayed that there are supposed patriots out there who didn't recognize the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence.  The self evident truths are nigh on holy writ to me.

[Mikebert]

(07-03-2017, 10:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 02:22 PM)Mikebert Wrote: About the NRA ad.  Nobody saw it as an ad to promote gun sales?  Guns last a long time if properly cared for. Guns purchased for specific purposes like hunting  is a saturated market segment. Hunting is not a growing sport.  How often do you need to replace one of your hunting guns?  Not very often, so there is little sales potential there. Now what is the purpose of a hunting gun? To kill animals.  What is the purpose of a military weapon?  To kill people. These were traditionally the two most important market segments, sales of weapons to civilians hunters and weapon sales to the military.

Today there is a new market segment,  military-styled semi-automatic weapons.  What is their purpose? I suspect it is a fashion statement.  Guns in the first two categories are tools.  Once you have good tools, you only are going to buy when you want to replace an old one.

In contrast, one cannot never have too many fashion statements, as the purpose is to signal social status.  

The ominous footage shown in the ad provides a justification for gun owners to be a "sheepdog" as opposed to a sheep, when faced by amorphous threats from people you don't like. The sheepdog lifestyle is best illustrated by the arsenal you have acquired. Encouraging conservative men to purchase ever more weapons keeps demand high for the industry--which is something you would expect from an industry group like the NRA.

I'm pretty sure it was an ad to promote NRA membership, like most NRA ads.

When the left gets a win, they push further.  They got gay marriage, so now they're pushing to force people to participate and be supportive of gay marriage ceremonies even if that's against those people's religious beliefs.  They'll be pushing to force churches to perform the ceremonies next.

The NRA didn't do that.  They fought for the right to own firearms, successfully, but they didn't follow that up by aggressively pursuing concealed carry and open carry.  As a result, they lost the support of the militia movement folks for being allegedly insufficiently supportive of the second amendment.

This video appears to me to be an attempt to get those people back on board with the NRA.

Wouldn't those folks be big buyers of firearms?

[pbrower2a]

(07-03-2017, 10:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 02:22 PM)Mikebert Wrote: About the NRA ad.  Nobody saw it as an ad to promote gun sales?  Guns last a long time if properly cared for. Guns purchased for specific purposes like hunting  is a saturated market segment. Hunting is not a growing sport.  How often do you need to replace one of your hunting guns?  Not very often, so there is little sales potential there. Now what is the purpose of a hunting gun? To kill animals.  What is the purpose of a military weapon?  To kill people. These were traditionally the two most important market segments, sales of weapons to civilians hunters and weapon sales to the military.

Today there is a new market segment,  military-styled semi-automatic weapons.  What is their purpose? I suspect it is a fashion statement.  Guns in the first two categories are tools.  Once you have good tools, you only are going to buy when you want to replace an old one.

In contrast, one cannot never have too many fashion statements, as the purpose is to signal social status.  

The ominous footage shown in the ad provides a justification for gun owners to be a "sheepdog" as opposed to a sheep, when faced by amorphous threats from people you don't like. The sheepdog lifestyle is best illustrated by the arsenal you have acquired. Encouraging conservative men to purchase ever more weapons keeps demand high for the industry--which is something you would expect from an industry group like the NRA.

I'm pretty sure it was an ad to promote NRA membership, like most NRA ads.

When the left gets a win, they push further.  They got gay marriage, so now they're pushing to force people to participate and be supportive of gay marriage ceremonies even if that's against those people's religious beliefs.  They'll be pushing to force churches to perform the ceremonies next.

Of course the Right backs off when it starts seeing itself go too far. And you can train a cat to go vegan.

Truth be told, one can refuse to attend any marriage ceremony for any reason. The State cannot compel people to attend interfaith or interracial marriages, so if someone does not want to witness his pretty white daughter marrying some black man, one can avoid attending the marriage even if being unable to stop it. I know of a preacher who will not perform a marriage between people who have cohabitated for at least a year of living separately. That is his standard. Churches can refuse to become venues for marriages of which they disapprove. I doubt that anyone expects Westboro Baptist Church to perform a same-sex marriage or the Church of Adolf Hitler to perform a marriage between an 'Aryan' and an 'Untermensch'. Were I a preacher I would refuse to participate in a marriage that looks exploitative or potentially destructive. Marriage between two people with a wide disparity of age creeps me out and suggests the potential for an exploitative relationship, and for practical reasons I would refuse to officiate a wedding involving two people who do not even speak the same language or a couple that has already had violence in their relationship.


So go to a civil authority which cannot discriminate against a marriage between someone 70 and someone 16 or shop around for clergy who will go along.  Oh, Warren Jeffs is no longer available?

Quote:The NRA didn't do that.  They fought for the right to own firearms, successfully, but they didn't follow that up by aggressively pursuing concealed carry and open carry.  As a result, they lost the support of the militia movement folks for being allegedly insufficiently supportive of the second amendment.

...any cause that sees the need for support from the 'militia movement' has a problem.

This might surprise you, but NRA leadership might as well see the election of Donald Trump as overwhelming evidence that liberals would be wise to not sacrifice 'gun rights' should they need guns with which to defend against right-wing extremists. (OK, if one wanted to treat 'gun rights' like other rights in the Constitution  one might as well rewrite the Second Amendment to include at the least a non-discrimination clause as do those Amendments involving voting rights, due process, and citizenship.

Quote:This video appears to me to be an attempt to get those people back on board with the NRA.

The NRA needs to become more mainstream if it is to have credibility.

[Eric the Green]

No question about Daily Banter being a blue site; already admitted. Yet you feel the need to say it again, Bob.

Allergic reactions to it from the red side are not a concern at this point. This is a 4T. As I said, the aim is to dispense the truth to those still open to it. The truth is there in that article amidst the spin. Readers and listeners will have to assume in a 4T that things are going to be spun, and not get so dizzy that one cannot discern the truth amidst the spin. It's not that hard. And it's not that hard to tell that there's more truth on the blue side than on the red side, for those that are open to the truth.

I think this quote from that blue site is very true: "You cannot reach out and find common ground with people who do not acknowledge reality in any way." That applies to lots of people on the red side, and many more than on the blue side. And the fact that people on the red side assumed what they did about the NPR post, is factual evidence of that.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-07-2017, 09:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: No question about Daily Banter being a blue site; already admitted. Yet you feel the need to say it again, Bob.

I feel I do. You seem dedicated to spamming this forum with blue heavily spun stuff. There are no red equivalents posting Breitbart or similar red sources anywhere near your frequency. If there were, I doubt such spun stuff would add a lot to the conversation.

(07-07-2017, 09:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Allergic reactions to it from the red side are not a concern at this point. This is a 4T. As I said, the aim is to dispense the truth to those still open to it. The truth is there in that article amidst the spin. Readers and listeners will have to assume in a 4T that things are going to be spun, and not get so dizzy that one cannot discern the truth amidst the spin. It's not that hard. And it's not that hard to tell that there's more truth on the blue side than on the red side, for those that are open to the truth.

I, at least, am concerned with creating and maintaining some degree of communication between the factions. Spamming each other with spun junk doesn't seem to me to be any more 'communication' than poking a bear with a sharp stick.

(07-07-2017, 09:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think this quote from that blue site is very true: "You cannot reach out and find common ground with people who do not acknowledge reality in any way." That applies to lots of people on the red side, and many more than on the blue side. And the fact that people on the red side assumed what they did about the NPR post, is factual evidence of that.

Yep. This is good reason to rebut people who do not acknowledge reality in any way.