I have to say, calling someone an evil thing, then saying your hatred for them is completely rational, doesn’t really follow. Most hatred is in fact irrational, and dehumanizing the person is also not a rational thing to do, although it is certainly a common human thing to do.
And just to increase your knowledge base, I am in fact a firearms owner, and someone that has enjoyed firing many different firearms for several decades. And I am planning on voting for Hillary Clinton in the General Election in November. I am of course an urban kind of guy, living in the county seat of the county I was born and raised in. Population almost 11,000 in the last census.
Wow. Let’s unpack all that. None of those sources call Clinton a liar: you are misleading your readership. Absolute immunity is a term generally applied to diplomats: Senator Clinton is borrowing it with accuracy. The word absolute doesn’t even appear in the NPR article: again, you mislead your readers. WAPO characterizes the phrase “Absolute immunity” as an exaggeration: they say, “Still, Clinton has a point. The law provides a unique federal legal shield that most consumer goods manufacturers do not have. There are few industries that have federal liability immunity.” That’s two sources that you have mis-represented. (I agree that the Chicago Trib and WAPO article are closely related.)
I find Clinton’s statements regarding the unique federal legal shield enjoyed by gun manufacturers to be far more accurate than your post.
Er, didn’t you give an example of a gun seller being sued? Because that’s not especially relevant. The NAACP wanted gun manufacturers not to distribute their weapons via sellers known to sell repeatedly to criminals. Smith and Wesson had no problem cleaning up their distribution channels. They received an NRA boycott in response. The 2005 law was specifically geared to avoid the absolute immunity from being sued for distributing your manufactured items via a corrupt seller, right?
As for unusual definition, I already linked to the wikipedia article on “Absolute immunity”. The WAPO/Trib article thinks it’s an exaggeration and I don’t find that position unreasonable. It’s yours that is off the wall and misleading to our fine readership. They deserve better. Well, most of them do. Usually.
Another citation on absolute immunity, linked from wiki: “Absolute immunity only applies to acts committed within the scope of the official’s duties. Usually, this will not include acts that are committed by the official with malice or corrupt motives.” Again, absolute immunity is typically applied to something that is not boundless in scope. Manufacturers do have absolute immunity against being sued for having a faulty distribution channel, or one where they are distributing their firearms via sellers who repeatedly sell to criminals.
Nor did I claim that any source I’ve linked to has called Clinton a liar. I am calling Clinton a liar. That is based on her repeated false claim. The claim that every source has said is wrong, not accurate, an exaggeration, etc. You said yourself, one instance could be a mistake - several instances is not a mistake. Intentionally repeating a claim that is false with the intent to deceive - that makes her a liar in my book.
But I notice this pattern from you - you accuse me of doing something…taking things out of context, only quoting two words, or misrepresenting sources. All of these claims are wrong of course, and when I point it out you ignore it. Why is that? You said I was only quoting two words and questioned my honor - but of course I quote entire sentences or paragraphs so your claim is false and you ignore it. You said I took things out of context, and then you used the exact same quote I used and claimed it was in context so this claim was ridiculous and you ignore it. And now you say I’m misleading by attacking a claim I never made. It’s bizarre.
I think readers are perfectly capable of evaluating what they are reading and the relevant source material. Take for example the NPR article you referring to:
“Totally free of liability” was the claim at this particular venue that Clinton was speaking at. This is similar to the “absolute immunity” phrasing she used in multiple other occasions, but this one doesn’t have the fairytale land tap dancing excuse you seem to be clinging to - that she was using her phrase as you would for diplomats. This claim by Clinton is also false, as the NPR article notes. NPR construes her claim of “totally free of liability” as “zero liability”. Are you going to accuse them of taking things out of context? Do you want to attempt to explain away “totally free from liability” as well? Because that claim is false but I’d love to see you try and twist it to fit your fanciful narrative.
Your accusations of misrepresenting sources are baseless. To actually have merit you’d have to demonstrate the source says something contrary to what I assert it says. I’m using the three linked sources in post #78 to primarily disprove your ‘like a diplomat’ concoction and simultaneously show that multiple other sources evaluated Clinton’s claim and concluded she was mistaken. Which they do.
So the source says she’s exaggerating, then tries to make her point for her. That’s wonderful and all, and if she said that gun manufacturers have greater protection than other industries then I would have no objection. But that’s not what she said so the ‘but she has a point…’ refrain trying to save her remark from being transparently false falls flat. But this is a good segue to bring up the other mistake that Clinton makes, and it’s highlighted in the WaPo article. This was what they quoted:
I’ve focused on the “absolute immunity” part because that’s the most obvious lie. But her claim that “no other industry” is also misleading - the article notes that vaccine manufacturers also enjoy a type of immunity - though there is a compensation scheme created in place of holding manufacturers liable. This isn’t as much a lie but a convenient omission since it takes away from her narrative.
You have still failed to define “faulty distribution channels”. **Can you do so? ** Right now it’s made up term you can twist to fit whatever scenario you create. And here’s where your failure to read the actual law in question comes into play again. From the text of the PLCAA:
If a manufacturer sells or disposes of a firearm to a buyer who is prohibited, they can be held liable and do not enjoy the protections of the PLCAA. I still can’t tell if that’s what you’re actually talking about though, because you’re using made up terms without defining them. Is that on purpose?
Can you find a single reputable source that thinks Clinton’s claims about “absolute immunity” are accurate, or who’ve adopted your absurd contention that she’s using the term “absolute immunity” as you would for diplomats? Because your construction doesn’t just stretch credulity, it wraps it around a building and then takes a shit all over it.
It seems to me that you claimed that the NPR piece assesses Clinton’s usage of the term absolute immunity. It does not. In fact basically only one of your article do (if we consider the WAPO and Trib pieces to be basically the same). And that one calls it an exageration.
I’ve linked to Clinton’s remarks in full upthread. She refers to “the absolute immunity”, pretty clearly referring to what she said earlier. I’m sorry if you can’t handle common English usage of a somewhat technical term, but that’s no reason to call someone a liar, while saying that you are backing up that claim with references that don’t even use the same phrase.
We both know that the gun manufacturing industry has been treated as special for many years, pre-dating that 2005 act. There’s no reason to get butthurt about calling it absolute immmunity. None. There’s certainly no reason to point fingers and accuse others of lying.
I’d hit your other points, but honestly I think that after thousands of words on the subject less is very much more.
Just off the top of my head, I can remember that Obama:
[ul]
[li]will/would work with the EPA to ban lead ammunition.[/li][li]will/would confiscate all guns.[/li][li]will/would prepare “FEMA Corps” to suppress any uprising from the populous in reaction to the above.[/li][/ul]
Now this is either part of a grand scheme to inundate me, and others, with moon bat conspiracies to the point that I stop listening OR it’s just groups concocting “issues” for any number of agendas. I went with the latter and cancelled my lifetime membership with the NRA.
Your reading comprehension skills have failed you. As I stated in the previous post #83, the NPR cite was offered to disprove your ‘like a diplomat’ concoction. There’s a hint in the part you quoted (my bold)
I’ll walk you through it since you’ve failed to grasp it twice now. The first sentence is a question, the key part is “like diplomats?” The third sentence is a statement - that being that “none of the people who fact check Clinton subscribe to this novel idea.” That novel idea is…wait for it…your ‘like a diplomat’ bullshit. In other words, the cite is used to show an absence of your claim. In fact, I asked you about this in the last post too:
Can you?
(my bold)
What do you think “totally free of liability” means? That claim is false too. Are you trying to say that that claim is some wholly different one that her multiple other iterations of “absolute immunity”? Because that’s some serious handwaving. Can you find any cite that evaluates Clinton’s claims as accurate?
And this is what you seem to want to cling to. That your interpretation, shared by no one, is correct, and that all who have evaluated Clinton’s claims are incorrect or are leaving out the gem that you have discovered. Brilliant! But realize this interpretation was fabricated by you only after you realized your error, that Clinton didn’t in fact muff her remarks about “absolute immunity”. First you tried to claim this was like an off the cuff remark that she made unintentionally. After I showed she used this phrasing repeatedly on many occasions, only then did you switch to this absurd notion that she’s actually referring to something like diplomatic immunity.
Except of course, when others are lying. Like Clinton. Because she is a liar. Using phrases in an effort to deceive is not new for gun control folks (see Surgarman and “assault weapons”). They do this to create confusion and increase support for their ideas where otherwise there would be less. Much like the result when people are mistaken for several years about product liability and guns blowing up - like you. But you wont make that mistake again - is two times enough?
This is probably better for you since you keep avoiding addressing issues. What was it you said earlier? (my bold):
Are you refusing to define your own terms, or was this an oversight? Still no definition for “faulty distribution channels”. I mentioned this in post 78 and 83. Then there’s all of these too:
**
So let’s do a quick tally of all the things you’ve gotten wrong in this thread:**
[ol]
[li]You said a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand - false[/li][li]You said Clinton “muffed” a response saying “absolute immunity” - false[/li][li]You said manufacturers could make pistol grips out of plastic explosives and that would be ok until somebody actually suffers harm from them - false[/li][li]You said I took Clinton’s remarks out of context by quoting two words - false[/li][li]You said I took things out of context in general - false, you quoted the exact same thing[/li][li]You said the “Charleston Loophole” is somehow related to the PLCAA - false[/li][li]You said I made the claim that linked sourced called Clinton a liar - false[/li][/ol]
I don’t know about you but I’d be embarrassed if I made so many errors. Maybe it’s better you adopt the ‘less is more’ approach now. The more you make claims the more your tally of errors rises.
And here’s the questions you’ve avoided, maybe on purpose, maybe not:
[ol]
[li]do you think that the PLCAA gives absolute immunity?[/li][li]Can you find a single reputable source that thinks Clinton’s claims about “absolute immunity” are accurate, or who’ve adopted your absurd contention that she’s using the term “absolute immunity” as you would for diplomats?[/li][li]Can you define your use of the term you created: “faulty distribution channel”?[/li][/ol]
So it’s clear Clinton repeatedly used the term “absolute immunity”. She also used the phrase “totally free of liability”. Both of these are false. Clinton knows or should know these are false. I can’t read her mind, but I think she does this with the intent to deceive. Nothing else to call intentional false statements with the intent to deceive except lies - ergo Clinton is a liar.
And as I’ve noted multiple times, the NPR piece doesn’t address the phrase “absolute immunity”. That phrase appears nowhere in the article. The phrase happens to have originated within the context of diplomacy. But it’s simple English.
Your problem isn’t with Clinton. Your problem is with the English language. Absolute immunity is understood to be absolute only within a restricted scope. Otherwise the term would have hardly any application. It’s hard to imagine any person or institution with absolute immunity from everything.
Further conversation has become pointless. If you use a piece of journalism to as you claim, “…disprove your ‘like a diplomat’ concoction”, when it in fact doesn’t even contain the phrase “Absolute immunity” at all - then double down on your claim, well anybody can see what you’re doing.
To be clear.
“Absolute immunity” is an English term: I’ve linked to it in wikipedia. The WAPO piece says Clinton exaggerated, during the factcheck after a Sanders/Clinton debate. No problem, that’s what fact checkers do. They critiqued both sides. And they noted that Clinton’s remarks were not wildly off base.
I’m not going to go on about these so-called errors of mine, because your post clearly originates from another dimension. It consistently misrepresents journalism and refuses to accept common Enlish usage of your key term after multiple citations are provided. The spine of your argument is empty.
For the third time - I never asserted that the NPR piece addressed the phrase “absolute immunity”. You came up with that strawman on your own. It was one cite among many that looked at Clinton’s claims - that one in particular was “totally free of liability”. In what way is that meaningfully different? Any way you assess it, that claim as identified in the NPR article is also a lie. The point was that no one has engaged in your “like a diplomat” absurdity. Still can’t find a cite where anyone assesses Clinton’s claims this way right? Are you still looking?
Cool story, bro. Cutting your losses is probably better for you. Refusing to acknowledge errors, refusing to answer questions, refusing to define terms (what did you say about folks who do this again?). That’s what you’ve accomplished here. I’m not sure if that’s a preferable track record than Clinton being a liar. Kind of a toss up.
The thing is, if you actually wanted a substantive discussion about the merits of the PLCAA that could be done, but only if you actually understand it. Refusing to read it and clinging to the lies that Clinton tells about it puts you at a distinct disadvantage to reality.
A difficult combination and you’re not likely to find someone who completely matches your philosophy. You might prioritize your issues and voter for the person who matches those the best.
Can’t help you there. Note that there has never been and never will be a libertarian government in the world. Along with the economic benefits of living in a modern industrial nation comes with it the necessity of government infrastructure, services, safety net, and regulation. You might check with the Somali government for their immigration policies if that doesn’t work for you.
For the most part, I’m with you. Note that one party wants to make carrying a pregnancy to term mandatory.
I think except for Ted Cruz, who wanted to ban dildos, most of us are with you.
I suggest the Democrats are friendlier to the concept of the separation of church and state.
I disagree with every word you wrote, but I don’t view it as important. Right now the political climate is not conducive to any new gun control legislation regardless of who is president, so I believe these concerns are irrelevant.
We agree that some should not own guns, I would expand that to all. I’m unconcerned with infringing on gun owners. Again, the point is quite moot in this political climate.
Automatic sentences I believe are counterproductive, our prisons have too many people as it is. I’m opposed to capital punishment so I disagree with the last point. More importantly, I don’t know of any statements by any candidates on any of these points, so it’s a crapshoot from your point of view.
No, it isn’t. It’s just codespeak for “OMG Scary Brown People!!! They want our jobs, they want our white women!!! Run for the hills!!! Aieeeeeeeee!!!” Take a deep breath and ask yourself what you’re really afraid of. You’re being played by those who want to exploit your fears for political gain. It simply isn’t a major problem, except for those hiding in the shadows.
With you on the first sentence, not with the rest. All of us use health care. All of us need to pay for it. The most cost efficient way for us all to do it is for all of us to buy insurance. It isn’t that people can’t afford it, they can’t afford not to buy it.
Not sure where you got the $3000 figure. But let’s be generous and suppose it’s right. Seems like a bargain to get free higher education. Scandanavians pay a lot more taxes than Americans but they get so much more. We’d do well to follow their lead.
If your main concern is your fictitious “right” to own guns, then you’re stuck voting Republican. Please note that there isn’t sufficient political clout behind the noble gun-banning faction. Do you honestly think the ammosexual Republicans in Congress would get behind Hillary’s alleged gun-banning tendencies? Seems like a waste to base your vote on something that isn’t going to happen until we’re all dead and buried.
Can’t fault you here.
Yes, Trump sucks donkey dick. We can’t allow him to be president. Thus the only sane alternative is Hillary, which you could see if you were capable of looking past the guns.
Your claim. Your words. You listed NPR saying, “None of the people who fact check Clinton subscribe to this novel idea” - then followed with a quote that didn’t address the concept at all. Highly misleading. Far less accurate than the statements of Senator Clinton. And it’s central to your accusations of dishonesty by the former Secretary of State. You are not doing your side any favors.
Oh goodie, you’re back. I had thought that you ran away given you said further conversation was pointless. I see that the amount of content you offer has decreased which is probably better for you since, as I said, the more you write, the more you make mistakes. Here’s another:
I forgot to address this. Have you heard of the concept of Sovereign Immunity? We have it in the US. The federal government enjoys sovereign immunity, and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. That’s immunity from everything. Now you’ve learned something!
Your criticism of the inclusion of the link from NPR is nonsense. It rests on two things: 1) the idea that the claim of absolute immunity is wholly different than the claim that gun manufacturers are “totally free from liability”. And 2) the idea that your equivocation to diplomatic immunity is plausible. So is it your contention that the claim of absolute immunity is wholly different than the claim that gun manufacturers are “totally free from liability”? If you want to treat these separately I can count these as two separate Clinton lies. Because the latter is also a false statement by Clinton, and knowingly so. Which, similar to her other false statements, wait for it…makes Clinton a liar.
And ultimately, none of my arguments are impacted in any way by the exclusion of the NPR article. The point remains that no one who looks at Clinton’s statements about absolute immunity (and to humor you) or her statements about manufacturers being “totally free from liability” - no one who has analyzed these subscribes to your concoction about diplomatic immunity.
So let’s recap the errors since now I can add another one:
[ol]
[li]You said a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand - false[/li][li]You said Clinton “muffed” a response saying “absolute immunity” - false[/li][li]You said manufacturers could make pistol grips out of plastic explosives and that would be ok until somebody actually suffers harm from them - false[/li][li]You said I took Clinton’s remarks out of context by quoting two words - false[/li][li]You said I took things out of context in general - false, you quoted the exact same thing[/li][li]You said the “Charleston Loophole” is somehow related to the PLCAA - false[/li][li]You said I made the claim that linked sourced called Clinton a liar - false[/li][li]You said it was hard to imagine any person or institution with absolute immunity from everything - not exactly false, but deeply ignorant. The US is an institution with Sovereign Immunity from everything.[/li][/ol]
And here’s the questions you’ve avoided, maybe on purpose, maybe not:
[ol]
[li]do you think that the PLCAA gives absolute immunity?[/li][li]Can you find a single reputable source that thinks Clinton’s claims about “absolute immunity” are accurate, or who’ve adopted your absurd contention that she’s using the term “absolute immunity” as you would for diplomats?[/li][li]Can you define your use of the term you created: “faulty distribution channel”?[/li][/ol]
To give you a chance to answer the new question, I left it off the list. I bolded it above for you. But as to the others, why are you refusing to answer direct questions?