Jump to content

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    7551
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

  1. 2 hours ago, Tuco said:

    al-Sadr’s coalition won in Iraq. I think it’s time to admit defeat in Iraq. I knew we weren’t ever going to win, but I didn’t think sadr would. What a fucking waste.

    Mission Accomplished

    • Like 1
  2. For fuck's sake, Texas Ted Cruz was a mime in high school. A Christian mime. 
    Pasted_Image_3_10_16__2_52_PM.jpg
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAJAJAJAHHSHAH ST UFJSEJJNC DEW WKURIFZEHWIIZ JS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  3. Dark subject, yes. Just thought I would start a thread to see if anyone wants to share any personal trauma they've experienced that they want to share. It can be hard to shake, but sharing it may be somewhat cathartic.
    For me, mine is going to seem pretty lame compared to most, but my mom was a hard person to be around when I was a kid. She would blow things way out of proportion. Any time we would be in public and she perceived herself being slighted in any way she would cause a scene. She would scream and berate the employee she thought was causing her angst and then transfer that to his or her manager. I just wanted to hide and die. She couldn't care less about how it made people around her feel, but whatever - she got her pound of flesh. She would get mad at my little brother and me for running off and "not having her back" - we were 12 and 10.
    She was also the worst aim with the belt. I came home with a bad progress report in 6th grade. I think I had earned a D in every subject on that progress report and when she read it, she laid me across my bed, took a belt and destroyed my legs and back. My grades did improve, though, so I guess I have her to thank. Confronting her about it as an adult, she says it's the only way she knew how to deal with it.
    Not nearly to that extent but I can relate to a parent having no qualms to escalating an inconvenience into a public scene. When I was a tot me and my sister were in the back seat of our car during a Sunday drive. Looking back on it now, I have a good idea what happened.

    Waiting at red light, light turns green. The story goes car in front didn't move. My gut is my dad had a trigger palm on the horn. Both doors fly open. Panic. Lock doors. In a snap, both guys are jerking at our car doors, rocking our car back and forth. Me and sis are crying. Dad takes off. These guys chase. Instant insanity. Mom freaking and remembers seeing a constable earlier so hauling ass with strangers in hot pursuit and through sheer dumb luck find him and pull over and babble the 411 just as weirdos hit the brakes and roll by all nonchalant. Constable takes off, followed by the Family Truckster, pulls them over, and 98 pound Constable has to divert his attention restraining my dad (with assist from Mom), from going Alabama fan on Oklahoma fan. End story, both guys had been released from Huntsville that week. I have no memory of it.
    • Like 2
  4. https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1?page=
     
    The TL;DR version
    For example, the majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence:
    • Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.
    • Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
    • Accidental deaths due to firearms has continued to fall as well, with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
    • Also, the report noted that mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.”
    • The study said that “interventions,” such as background checks and restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use, showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime.
    • The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy — from friends, family members, or gang members — well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.
    • The study reported that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”
      • “If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” These areas, of course, are noted for the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for the president to celebrate the report’s findings.
    It's like you copied and pasted your tldr version without attribution.
  5. 5 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

    Yet the CDC ran a study in 2013. The results weren't favorable to your side, if they were, I'm sure your side would just say something retarded like "the science is settled." The CDC has funding for another study, they can run one at any time they want.

    For the record, I don't know what the solution to gun violence is but I tend to believe more stringent regulation on access to guns would be part of the solution and would definitely support more research so for argument's sake lets say I'm pro-gun control.

     

    You are correct in that the inconclusive 2013 CDC wasn't favorable to my side. That's why I don't bring it up.

    The same study isn't favorable for your side. It's inconclusive yet you do bring it up. My question is why are you bringing up a study that favors neither side?

     

    It would follow that MORE not LESS research is needed following an inconclusive study. Instead, what has happened subsequent to the 2013 CDC study, as pointed out in my first link, is that the right has slashed CDC funds dedicated to gun violence research by 90 percent. For the record, that would be LESS research. So my second question to you is, do you support MORE research or LESS?

     

     

  6. 4 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

    I'm not opposed to researching issues, by all means let the CDC run studies every 5-10 years on guns. Just don't come back with some lame inconclusive data point when the results aren't favorable to your preconceived notions.

    ???

     

    You're the one that brought up the inconclusive 2013 CDC study in reaction to me pointing out the NRA has lobbied against the federal government studying gun violence in our country. I'm still struggling to understand your point in doing that.

  7. 17 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

    And if the study had said that guns were the devil incarnate, the study would have been the end all be all for the gun control movement. It's like Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change. Keep researching until you get the results you want.

    So you're saying that the scientific community that studies climate change, now that they've reached the results that they want, are advocating that funding for research into climate change now cease. I'm pretty sure it would behoove them to stop researching under your scenario but I'm also pretty sure the researchers are advocating for more research. 

     

    As opposed to the inconclusive 2013 CDC that you brought up. It's the NRA pushing for less research based on a study that came to no conclusions. They didn't "land" on any pre-determined results, yet only one side reacts to that by lobbying for less research. 

  8. 9 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

    Of course you come back with that article. Never mind what the CDC research says, we need them to do more research until they produce the results we want them to produce.

    Yes, of course I would point to an inconclusive CDC study as an imperative for more research. I believe more knowledge regarding a subject is a good thing as opposed to the NRA's position that less knowledge is preferable. 

  9. 4 minutes ago, ndawg said:

    A question worth answering, IMO: is the frequency and severity of mass shootings in this country an aberration relative to other countries?

    If it is, then we can at least set out to uncover why we have a problem that other countries don't. I think the answer is very clearly "yes," but I'd rather hear from folks who think our mass shootings are more or less "normal."

    Unfortunately, there's a certain lobbying organization that has successfully stymied the federal government from actually studying what seems to be a uniquely American problem. 

    • Like 1
  10. How about we focus on areas of agreement. Since both sides generally agree mental health plays a role in these mass shootings, how about we all pull together and support a comprehensive national healthcare system that increases access to mental healthcare services instead of relying on the mentally ill to take personal responsibility for their mental health?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Ohhh.....

    • Like 7
  11. 27 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

    Project your silliness onto me all you like if it improves your maudlin day, dufus. I've positioned around nothing here other than you being a beating to read.

    My real view beyond that is that you're legitimately emotionally unstable and I hope you're seeking help for it. I see your droning of whatever new thing has drawn your high and mighty ire on this board and when I don't roll my eyes and click away, I honestly think to myself that you've got mental issues that could be putting yourself and loved ones in danger. Before you project what's going on inside of you to the rest of us, do the responsible thing and take care of your own housekeeping first. 

    ...said closetojumping.

  12. Ike's follow-up transcript was interesting. After his initial testimony, he was compelled to correct some of his statements from the initial interview.
    1. Around the time of the Miss Universe pageant, he witnessed Aras in a call with Putin's press secretary where Aras indicated Trump was requesting a meeting with Putin. He does not know if that meeting occurred. 
    2. After the June 9 meeting, Ike had said he flew home to California.  During that initial interview, the committee pointed out that his phone records had indicated he was roaming in Russia.  So, in the follow-up he corrected the record to indicated he flew back to Russia the day after the Trump Tower meeting.  For a month.  Just slipped his mind previously.  Even when they were questioning him about the phone records. Part of his business in Russia was to work with Sberbank for refinancing of the Croucus Group (his company) debt.
    ...so this supposed outlier of a episode in which everyone got their stories straight, as if that's a feat, is just more of the same of contradictions, discrepancies, and corrections.
×
×
  • Create New...