Jump to content

The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left


Mr King

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Damn, with acrobatics like that you should have gone out for the US Men's gymnastics team heading to Paris this summer.  😆

You know, I have to point out that in this particular case, it takes mental gymnastics arranged like a pile of spaghetti to ignore that Sotomayor couldn't even grasp that a bump stock needs a movement of the trigger EVERY time and still write in her dissent that the trigger was actuated one time after which the gun fired automatically with no more trigger pulls and thus the bump stock was a machine gun by statute. 

You were going on about constitutional scholars and yet your side's scholars can't even understand the functions of a trigger. It's not just your mumbling president who can barely piece 5 words together in a coherent sentence, it's your entire party that wants to use the law in any way it can to do what it wants when it wants. 

If it walks like a moron and talks like a moron, it's a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 18.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Murph

    2065

  • Mr King

    1494

  • rmgill

    1334

  • Ivanhoe

    1313

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Read it in its entirety without the Leftist hysterics.  I am still digesting the decision, as usual however Sotomayor has the weakest writing (the DEI hire is even worse though).  

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976new_i4dk.pdf

 

Held: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b). Pp. 6–19. (a) A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” as defined by §5845(b) because: (1) it cannot fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger” and (2) even if it could, it would not do so “automatically.” ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns. P. 6. (b) A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” The phrase “function of the trigger” refers to the mode of action by which the trigger activates the firing mechanism. No one disputes that a semiautomatic rifle without a bump stock is not a machinegun because a shooter must release and reset the trigger between every shot. And, any subsequent shot fired after the trigger has been released and reset is the result of a separate and distinct “function of the trigger.” Nothing changes when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock. Between every shot, the shooter must release pressure from the trigger and allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger for another shot. A bump stock merely reduces the amount of time that elapses between separate “functions” of the trigger. ATF argues that a shooter using a bump stock must pull the trigger only one time to initiate a bump-firing sequence of multiple shots. This initial trigger pull sets off a sequence—fire, recoil, bump, fire—that allows the weapon to continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. This argument rests on the mistaken premise that there is a difference between the shooter flexing his finger to pull the trigger and pushing the firearm forward to bump the trigger against his stationary finger. Moreover, ATF’s position is logically inconsistent because its reasoning would also mean that a semiautomatic rifle without a bump stock is capable of firing more than one shot by a “single function of the trigger.” Yet, ATF agrees that is not the case. ATF’s argument is thus at odds with itself. Pp. 7–14. (c) Ev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

 

 

The other day, on an early morning chat show, somebody was speaking to someone who was saying Gaza Civvies are using some of the Israeli hostages as household slaves--I was on my way to work when the story started so I did'nt hear the end of it. At home I did a search RE: Gazans using Israeli hostages as slaves and I got two responses:

Google said that 'rescued Israeli hostage being used as a sex slave was 'mistranslated'

And on Duck Duck Go: a whole slew of stories about how the UN declared the mission that rescued the Israeli hostages was 'shocking' and might be a war crime--Time Magazine, Reuters, the Beeb were the primary promulgators of this story--as well as the usual 'FAMINE IN GAZA' narrative.

Edited by NickM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

 

I disagree, the Western anti-West media with ONG's supporting Hamas build pro-Hamas propaganda to attack the West.  Most of Hamas propaganda is censored by Western media because it would show Hamas culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/israeli-hostages-endured-violent-sexual-assault-in-gaza-doctors-confirm/
 

Quote

 

Doctors responsible for treating the released Israeli hostages have confirmed that female hostages suffered violent sexual assaults at the hands of Hamas captors.

The doctors confirmed to USA Today that Hamas sexually assaulted “many” of the released female hostages aged 12-48, adding that the hostages “came to us as patients with the trauma of those who witnessed very severe sexual assaults.” Upon their release, the hostages received pregnancy tests and were tested for sexually transmitted diseases.

“We know that female hostages were raped during their captivity under control of Hamas,” one Israeli military official said.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, rmgill said:

I begin to wonder if you can grasp anything other than Left Vs Right. 

That is rich coming from you.  🤣

15 hours ago, rmgill said:

Who is the DNC offering to promote fiscal responsibility in spending? Hmm? Anyone at all?

No one, nor did I imply they ever have.  I know you struggle with this but I highlight the failings of the Rs on this site not because I'm a D but because so many posters here make statements implying the only folks who are a problem are those with a D behind their name.  All that does is highlight how so many here don't even grasp what the real issues are.  If we're going to engage in worthwhile discussion, we should at least try to be honest in doing so.  That's something many on here struggle at...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, rmgill said:

You know, I have to point out that in this particular case, it takes mental gymnastics arranged like a pile of spaghetti to ignore that Sotomayor couldn't even grasp that a bump stock needs a movement of the trigger EVERY time and still write in her dissent that the trigger was actuated one time after which the gun fired automatically with no more trigger pulls and thus the bump stock was a machine gun by statute. 

You were going on about constitutional scholars and yet your side's scholars can't even understand the functions of a trigger. It's not just your mumbling president who can barely piece 5 words together in a coherent sentence, it's your entire party that wants to use the law in any way it can to do what it wants when it wants. 

If it walks like a moron and talks like a moron, it's a moron.

Here's a crazy thought - reply to what I'm actually saying, not what you think you're reading.

I've never commented on the actual ruling in the case.  My original post was in response to you ignoring Trump's role in all of this.  He was responsible for this rule being put into effect yet you just shrug that off while damning Ds in other discussions for doing the same.

This case is actually a great example of how Trump isn't a true believer in Conservative causes.  He's a populist, first and foremost.  After the Las Vegas shooting, when polling showed over 80% of Americans wanted these banned, he did what he could to make it happen even though the D administration beforehand realized there is no way these rules would stick.  Yet, Trump wanted it done after it was clear there was no way Congress would pass anything.

Now he's denying he even did that... and yet no criticism of him here when it's a pretty open/shut case.  I'm shocked, shocked to see that.  🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

That is rich coming from you.  🤣

Well, considering I was celebrating the killing of, what you noted was a Trump 'created' federal firearms law, And I'm decidedly opposed to the 80s and 90s era gun control, I am pretty consistent on principles. Same thing for things like the Communications Decency act AND the Patriot Act. 

20 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

No one, nor did I imply they ever have.  I know you struggle with this but I highlight the failings of the Rs on this site

I've noted numerous issues with Trump. Several pages back I think I wrote a number of points that I had issue with on the R Side. Hell, just above I noted that many are in fact very BAD on fiscal policy. 

So, that precisely does what you say I cannot do. 

In fact you clipped out or ignored precisely what you say I don't do. Here's the quote, "Yes. A great many of the Rs are not." That is fiscally conservative or responsible. 

So, again. You assert a negative when I provided the opposite. You're being disingenuous. 

20 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

not because I'm a D but because so many posters here make statements implying the only folks who are a problem are those with a D behind their name.

Well, they ARE. Can you not even see that? From Trans the Kids to immigration policy to fiscal policy to firearms law to law enforcement to foreign policy. They're the problem. 

How do you feel that Bidenomics is going? Well? 
 

20 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

  All that does is highlight how so many here don't even grasp what the real issues are.

So, to you, what are the real issues? 

 

20 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

  If we're going to engage in worthwhile discussion, we should at least try to be honest in doing so.

Yes well, if you assert I don't do something while redacting the very sort of statement you accuse me of not making, you'd very much need to revise your own tactics. 

20 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

  That's something many on here struggle at...

QED. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Here's a crazy thought - reply to what I'm actually saying, not what you think you're reading.

I've never commented on the actual ruling in the case.  My original post was in response to you ignoring Trump's role in all of this.  He was responsible for this rule being put into effect

IN PART. But it aligned with the standard STATIST mode of government. I have multiple times noted that there's a left right spectrum AND an Authoritarian/Libertarian spectrum. 

I am decidedly anti-authoritarian. The policy was in the Authoritarian camp. It's dead. Thanks also as a direct result to Trump's picks for Supreme court, among other things. 

That's not contortions, that's a full grasp of the complexities of the law, policy and supreme court importance. We don't have a king. 

16 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

yet you just shrug that off while damning Ds in other discussions for doing the same.

No. I don't. If I ignored the case entirely or didn't note who was on what side, then I'd be shrugging it off. 

I'm not. Again, Trump's own SCOTUS pick came down on the correct side of very much applying the statute and not wishy washy what they feel it should be law. 

16 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

This case is actually a great example of how Trump isn't a true believer in Conservative causes.

He is to a degree. He's a hell of a lot better than Biden. 

16 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

  He's a populist, first and foremost.  After the Las Vegas shooting, when polling showed over 80% of Americans wanted these banned, he did what he could to make it happen even though the D administration beforehand realized there is no way these rules would stick. 

We don't live in a total democracy and again, I note the SCOTUS decision was rightly decided in the right way. 

16 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Yet, Trump wanted it done after it was clear there was no way Congress would pass anything.

And who was opposed to him on it? Many of my friends who are MORE conservative than I noted it as a problem. 

16 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Now he's denying he even did that... and yet no criticism of him here when it's a pretty open/shut case.  I'm shocked, shocked to see that.  🙄

Right. Now, lets see your criticism of Biden's gun policy. Any comment on the 400 round shell magazine we all apparently have? 

Funny thing, lefties always want us to see nuance. I see nuance and all you can then complain about is we're not absolute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

Meanwhile in Texas, at the behest of the Biden DOJ. 


 

 

And still some believe elections would change a thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, another reason to specifically focus on Delocrats, they were cheofly behind the gaslighting over COVID, the lock downs, the forced vaccinations, and all of the censorship of what was really true, but your side was calling misinformation and disinformation. It was GOP governors stopping cities and localities from exercising legal powers that those officials didn’t have and they took flak from the left on that in spades. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, to add to the gaslighting terms of misinformation and disinformation, we now have Cheap Fakes. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skywalkre, I really would like to see an answer to that. 

If hiring and firing based on race is illegal under federal law, where's the DOJ on these incidents? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Skywalkre, I really would like to see an answer to that. 

If hiring and firing based on race is illegal under federal law, where's the DOJ on these incidents? 

The administration decides what it's priorities are for enforcement. Just as they've decided to not make border security a priority, reverse discrimination is not a priority.

This could be a civil case. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

es what it's priorities are for enforcement. Just as they've decided to not make border security a priority, reverse discrimination is not a priority.

Discrimination is discrimination. 

10 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

This could be a civil case. 

It SHOULD BE a federal case. It will likely be a LOT of civil cases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rmgill said:

Discrimination is discrimination. 

The Biden administration SHOULD enforce border security. It SHOULD enforce many laws it has chosen not to. For instance there are criminals that have prior felonies that should not have guns, and use guns in further crimes. These criminals could be charged with federal gun crimes but that seldom happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://arkhavencomics.com/2024/06/20/the-okeefe-disney-bombs-chapter-one/

Quote

How does O’Keefe do it?  Well, actually that’s pretty easy.  First, you study the senior executives and try to determine who is the most vulnerable to what bait, and likely why they might be loose-tongued.

A white male executive at Disney who appears to be overdue for promotion and is single, works nicely.  By now someone at Disney has told him, “Look, my dude, it’s not happening. Taniqua is getting that job instead of you.  Don’t make me say why, because I won’t.” He’s bitter and not without reason. Give him a sympathetic ear and he’ll start babbling.

Michael Giordano Senior Vice President for Business Affairs at Disney is having the worst day of his life.  It’s becoming extremely difficult to prove that he exists.  He is frantically scrubbing his internet tracks. He will have either announced his resignation by the end of the day or just outright been fired by Disney.

After identifying this potential weakest link they checked for profiles on Tinder, Bumble, OKCupid and finally struck gold with Hinge. 

The girls connected with their mark got a couple of glasses of wine into him and acted all impressed when he told them what he does (or rather did) for Disney.  “Oh, wow, like you meet actors and stuff, like, wow. Wow. That’s amazing.”

He would also go into how Disney indulges in its hiring practices by mostly using code words and dog whistles.  If they are talking to agents they will stress certain things like saying “We’re not looking for the usual suspects.” The agent offers up some coded word salad in reply and they go back and forth until the agent has worked that they want a female-to-male trans lesbian half black, half Latinx with the pronouns Xim/Blrr.   Again, no surprises but it’s suddenly in the open.

He then started on his own frustrations at the company.  One executive turned down a candidate who was half black but who wasn’t dark enough to be seen in meetings he was going to hold, so Michael had to go find someone else.  Not to mention his frustrated ambitions. He knows that a white is unpromotable at Disney under the Iger regime. This isn’t remotely a surprise to you my Darklings. None of this is, but no one has ever been caught on camera spilling the beans like this before. 

(...)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...