You raised a terrific kid! Did he make a sign, and if so, what did it say?
Earlier this hour, I was watching a news program from the BBC, and a girl walked by holding a sign that said (uncensored) “WE CALL BULLSHIT!” 
“If she’d had an AR15, she could have sat anywhere she fucking wanted to!”
My kiddos have been sick all week, so they’re not mixing with their friends at school at the moment; I don’t know if any walkouts are planned or not.
I’ve wondered what my response would be if the oldest talked about participating in a walkout. I think, if she asked me for permission, I’d say, “Nope. Some things you just have to do without an adult’s permission. But if you get any static for it, I’ve got your back.” And I’m glad your son and classmates have an actual plan. Good for them.
When blacks start carrying rifles, white America starts favoring gun control. The Black Panthers show up at some California protests carrying rifles and what to you know, California gets gun control, the GOP sponsor of the bill said, “openly carrying a gun is an 'act of violence or near violence.” How Ronald Reagan learned to love gun control | The Week
Funny video on this very subject. This just cracked me up.
Yeah, if I won the lottery, I’d use some of the money to go down to Florida, help blacks get concealed weapon permits and hold training sessions for them to understand the Stand Your Ground Law and when they can use it. You’d have Fox News calling for gun control by lunchtime.
Unless you are white … and if you are alt right (Nazi) you get extra special privileges.
The Gateway Pundit* strikes again: Family of Parkland Shooting Survivor Receiving Death Threats Over Conspiracy Theory That He’s Crisis Actor.
One maxim of my ex-wife’s that I’ve hung onto is that while the (KJV) Bible is full of “and it came to pass,” it never says “and it came to stay.” But as time goes on, I find myself slipping closer to despair that the world — or at least the US — is irretrievably broken. Which makes it harder to do what little I can to sustain it. I’ll keep going, but I keep wanting to apologize to my daughters for what I’ve gotten them into.
*Admittedly I’m a bit slow on the uptake, but I’d never heard of GP until recently. A clear case of “I wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then.”
You flatter yourself. I came in here an innocent and started out polite and laughingly believed that discussion of differing viewpoints could be had here in good faith. Of course the reality is that upon the merest hint of non-liberal ideation on my part I was immediately set upon by multiple posters being as rude and hateful as possible. Still, I persevered and tried to take the place seriously, and, as much as possible, continued to try to be polite and sincere at least with anyone who was respectful with me. Eventually I got so tired of walking on eggshells and spending all my time contending with evasions and obfuscations and lies about what I’d said that I just decided fuck it, I’ll dispense with trying to be polite and considerate. I also decided to post in such a fashion that the point I intended to make was clear and unequivocal (or ‘tone-deaf’ to the liberatti) and I utterly stopped giving the slightest fuck what what my opponents thought about what I said or how I said it. I was never aware of an impending banning and never altered my behavior in order to forestall it. You did make efforts to be helpful and to grease my way here the first few months, and I appreciated that both then and now. You are a good person and I’ve long regretted that a point came when we could no longer be friends. But the board itself is responsible for what it gets from me and you have nothing to apologize for. If the people here who interact with me were more honest and honorable in their posting behavior and willing to accept that people are entitled to have differing views, my behavior here would be 180 degrees from what it is, as is the case in real life.
“I’m only an asshole because you are meanies.”
Thank you.
More like “you people made me into this monster; it’s not my fault!”
Did you just say you come here to be a jerk?
You mean to earth?
Dude, it’s not your “non-liberal ideation” that causes you to be “set upon” by ignorance fighters. It’s your persistent and absolute impervious indifference to facts and rational argument.
For instance, in March 2004, a scant three months after joining this messageboard, you were railing and ranting against the electorate of Spain as “pussies” for allegedly “capitulating” to terrorists when they voted out the Iraq-invasion-coalition-supporting Aznar government shortly after the Madrid bombings.
In vain was it repeatedly pointed out to you that a whole lot of Spanish voters had already been against the Iraq invasion and the Aznar government before the Madrid bombings. That many Spanish voters were furious at the Aznar government’s concealing information about the bombings and trying to blame them on Basque separatists instead of Islamist terrorists. That they were voting out the Aznar PP government to punish them electorally for having dragged them into the unpopular and illegitimate Iraq war, not out of any expectation that they would somehow be conciliating terrorist bombers thereby.
Nope, in the funhouse-mirror world of the Starving Artist cogniverse, an alternative narrative that was simple, easy and false had already been immovably ensconced: Namely, since the Islamist terrorists who bombed Madrid trains did not like the Iraq invasion, and the Aznar government had chosen to involve Spain in the Iraq invasion, therefore when the Spanish voters kicked out the Aznar government they must have intended it as a pusillanimous propitiation of Islamist terrorists. Facts, logic and evidence be damned.
And it hasn’t got any better since. Dealing with the evidence-free and reason-proof Starving Artist cogniverse week in, week out for fourteen years is enough to make anybody a little testy sometimes.
Those are the same thing to him: “non-liberal ideation” = “persistent and absolute impervious indifference to facts and rational argument”.
ETA: But he uses different terms than you do. To him it’s “non-liberal ideation” = “so clearly and obviously right that these people must be idiots not to defer to me”.
Whereas there are actually quite a few other posters around here who are capable of both “ideating non-liberally” and having a rational factual discussion.
Look, I’m not gonna go rummaging around digging into the issue about Spain from 14 years ago to try to drill down and locate the various factors that resulted in whatever it was I said. Having said that, there are a jillion things that go on around here that are dishonest to the bone, such as attempts to make it appear an opponent holds to a certain belief even though subsequent events or information altered that view, etc. In the days when I tried to play the game here I was subjected to innumerable demands for cites that my opponent knew damn well didn’t and couldn’t exist. I’ve had people argue against things I’ve never said twisted themselves into pretzels to find some nonsensical way to find flaws in or mischaracterize what I say.
Time and time again things that are claimed as proof are nothing of the kind, and time and time again I’ve posted cites that then get ignored. People here will stoop to the silliest and most dishonest tactics to try to find fault with whatever I’ve said. The other day I stated a scenario intended to prove a point along this line by saying that if I were to say mass school shootings weren’t going in 1960 (a point I had made prior), someone would come charging in with a cite that someone set off a cherry bomb in class in the 50s and behave as though they proven me wrong and that I was full of it as usual.
This of course set about a flurry of activity on my opponents’ part to prove me wrong so someone finally dug up a much more minor shooting from 1927 or something, and posted it with authoritah as though it proved any damn thing at all either about the societies involved or the veracity of my claims. This is the kind of shit that has caused me to throw up my hands and decide to post what I want and let the chips fall where they may.
You people ignore or outright deny facts you don’t want to hear so there’s no point in wasting time getting into cite fights and no point in taking you seriously. Just the other day I posted a Youtube video of Maxine Waters getting in the face of the president of Shell Oil proudly proclaiming that she, as a liberal, was “about socializ[ing]…uh, uh…the government taking over, and running your companies”. Yet with this information right in front of you and your having watched the video, you proclaim she’s not a socialist and the video doesn’t mean she is. :rolleyes: The other day Monty posted a string of lies about me that dishonestly portrayed me as the worst kind of racist - things that were utter bullshit that I’ve never said or thought in my life - and then challenged me to point out his lies and claimed he never called me a racist. So I answered his challenge, posted the lies and pointed out just where he called me racist. Never heard so much as a peep out of his ass and he continued to post snark about me in other threads.
So long story short, don’t lecture me about ignoring evidence, especially when you and a member of the board’s Science Advisory Board both have engaged in that very behavior with me just within the last week.
Nobody is responsible for your behavior but yourself.
Uh, Starving Artist, if you find yourself making assertions on issues of fact for which supporting factual cites do not and cannot exist, the problem is not with your opponents who are demanding such cites.
This is another example of the bizarre workings of the Starving Artist cogniverse in which all desired conclusions are stubbornly extrapolated from one isolated source while all context and contradictory facts are completely ignored.
Maxine Waters is a member of the left wing of the Democratic Party. She supports centrist-liberal Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. (She even supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 over the Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, who while very far from being the classic conservative-bogeyman “commie” type of socialist is at least some watered-down flavor of actual socialist.)
The fact that you found one ten-year-old incident where Waters spoke approvingly of the possibility of socializing an extortionately and destructively profit-gouging industry as a strategy of last resort doesn’t somehow negate or override all the other facts of her political career. Yes, Waters is left-progressive and willing to consider some socialist policies or actions as positive in some particular cases. No, Waters is not a socialist per se and does not advocate replacing our representative-democracy system of government with a socialist one.
The fact that you can’t or won’t understand such differences is part of what makes dealing with the Starving Artist cogniverse so gratingly tedious. It’s like trying to argue with a toddler: whenever anyone corrects you, or refutes your claims, or explains to you facts that you overlooked, no matter how calmly or politely, you just petulantly dismiss it as those nasty liberals being mean to you.
Well, yeah, in the real world, but in the Truman Show version of 1955 he lives in…