Court reporter fined for courting reporting in court reporting.
-
Nope, still can't read it
-
Nope, still can't read it
You're the one with white text. Are you some kind of racist?!?! Is this some kind of whitewash?
-
Well, first I set the style for the whole div to display:none, but that seems to upset the scrolling feature a bit.
So I simply opted for style.color="#fff"
It's fun to see him flailing around
-
-
The Horseshoe Theory hard at work.
Perhaps, but George Wallace would turn a fire hose on you for saying it.
-
...against black and white Republicans. "...Who was a noted Democrat...
These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877
Here's the thing. First, especially for the first and second quotes, you can't look at the "Republican" and "Democrat" and interpret those terms as you would today; the parties have gone through several major realignments since then (i.e. party shifts), and the assignment to what we'd consider left/right today is nearly meaningless. More on that in a second. George Wallace makes a more convincing argument, but if you look back at the politics of the era it becomes less so: Wallace was pro-segregation because he was from the south (i.e. from a state that was part of the Confederacy), not because he was a Democrat. As a rule, southern politicians were pro-segregation regardless of party, and northern politicans were anti-segregation regardless of party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region has some illustrative figures, but perhaps the relevant ones are that southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act 8 for to 107 against, but northern Democrats voted for it 190 for to 10 against. Agreement with the KKK's position on race wasn't a partisan issue, it was a geographical one.Also revealing at that link is the fact that the Republican-Democrat split in southern states in 1964 was 11 Republicans vs 115 Democrats (house + senate). Today it is 126 Republicans vs 47 Democrats if I counted right. The demographics of the south haven't gotten less urban (Dem-favored today), so that should be a pretty good hint that something is wrong with extrapolating political positions like that. I don't know enough to tell you whether someone at the time would have said that Republicans are "right" and Democrats "left" (or even if they used those terms); but I can tell you that either the answer would be "no" or else their definition of left/right doesn't match ours.
Edit:
Wikipedia calls at least the second KKK right-wing:
-
Should we move this to the Meta category now that it's a political discussion about politics on TDWTF forum?
I could move it over here if you like:
-
I'd like that actually. Thanks!
or failing that Meta is probably a better categorization.
-
tl;dr
-
-
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
- Mark Twain
I read the whole thread and I think we struck Godwin's Law about 100 comments back.
-
And this has to do with technology exactly what?
Guns are technology. Ever see a caveman with a gun? I did. I was stoned. Not the point.
-
-
-
Never heard of dual-wielding?
I feel stupid now...
I mean, where would a caveman get ammo?
-
-
The 21' rule only applies if you are unaware of your threat and do not have your gun drawn. If you're pointing your gun right at them, it's much, much less than that. That's why people don't try to attack someone who has a gun on them at 10' away.
http://www.copinthehood.com/2014/09/the-21-foot-myth.htmlRegarding the "statistic" for "murders via guns", we've already shown it's a useless measure. If "murders via guns" goes down but "murders" goes up, along with other violent crimes, is that a useful change? No, because the tool doesn't matter, only the result.
Another "statistic" that is meaningless is that if you have a gun in your home, you're much more likely to die with it than to use it in a home defense. This is only true because when people want to commit suicide, they use a gun if they have it.
-
For sure! I mean, they're playing Rugby without the armor, unlike the US pussies!
Huh? I have a brother in law who plays rugby, and he doesn't wear much in the way of protective gear.
Oh, you were thinking of football? Where giant men hit really hard?
-
Yes, my dear,
Does whatever German idiom you're translating from really have the same meanings as the English phrase you're using?
-
or failing that <span class="mention">Meta</span> is probably a better categorization.
right... TL3. i can recategorize it now.
I think we'll be happier in our new home in Meta.
-
The 21' rule only applies if you are unaware of your threat and do not have your gun drawn.
Uh, go to youtube and search for "tueller drill". Sure, there's people there with gun not drawn, but they're also waiting for the assailant. You can shoot someone running at you with a knife from 21' away but you're not likely to kill him before he can stab you.
-
Can we get back to taking the piss out of American football?
Not with the piss poor job you guys were doing.
-
What kind of lame-ass insult is "taking the piss out of" anyway?
Honestly it sounds like something a 12 year old would say when there's no adults around.
-
I'm saying that the Eugenics movement in the US gave Nazi Germany quite a lot of ideas.
Yes, our Progressives and Liberals are terrible people. Look out, they're going to come tell you how you're an idiot because everyone knows that Nazis are right wingers.
I mean, you guys still have eugenic laws in the books and actually still practice them.
Do we? The last eugenics law I recall hearing about was a lawsuit in North Carolina over some sterilizations of retarded people back in the 60s or so.
Still and all, this is pretty weak stuff compared to the more vigorous eugenics you're trying to apologize for.
-
Do we? The last eugenics law I recall hearing about was a lawsuit in North Carolina over some sterilizations of retarded people back in the 60s or so.
Our liberals are sure intent on aborting all their kids, and that's kind of eugenic! I figure in a generation or two the U.S. will swing wildly conservative again as a result.
-
you have 40 times the death rate via gun the UK does according to wikipedia:
That sounds racist.
-
Oh, yes, the "What was right for the 19 century surely goes for the 21st!" argument
Yes, because our world is all safe now. It's amusing that you brought up being invaded by Canada, but certainly we have a problem with violence coming from Mexico.
Why do people want to be so helpless?
-
You're naively optimistic that you're getting the full distance.
That stuff also assumes that you have to draw the weapon. And that your attacker has already committed to attacking you. That's probably not the case in a home invasion.
Some stats please.
-
Uh, go to youtube and search for "tueller drill". Sure, there's people there with gun not drawn, but they're also waiting for the assailant. You can shoot someone running at you with a knife from 21' away but you're not likely to kill him before he can stab you.
I'll give you aware, but the Tueller drill is by definition holstered. If you have a gun pointed at someone, you can very easily stop them before 21 feet (depending on caliber).
-
Our liberals are sure intent on aborting all their kids, and that's kind of eugenic!
#NotBornThatWay
-
-
Another "statistic" that is meaningless is that if you have a gun in your home, you're much more likely to die with it than to use it in a home defense. This is only true because when people want to commit suicide, they use a gun if they have it.
It's only meaningless if you don't care about suicides at all, which (even if you think it's a personal choice that people should be "able" to make) is pretty darn heartless IMO. Having ready access to a gun doesn't just raise the suicide rate by gun... it raises the suicide rate period. (I don't have time to look for a citation now.)People who are on the edge are much more likely to actually follow through with a suicidal impulse if there is a quick and easy way to do it. Guns fit that bill probably more than anything else... to the point where if I were suicidal, perhaps the "best" way to do it would be to go out and buy one.
-
Carbon monoxide poisoning has to be about the best way to go. I had a mild case once. You get sleepy, pass out, and never wake back up. (Obviously I didn't get past the sleepy part, but I did learn a lesson about operating a chainsaw indoors even if it's only for 30 seconds.)
Really not sure what someone else's suicidal tendencies have to do with my right to protect myself, my friends, and my family. Either way someone could die. I'm more worried about those who want to live than those who don't.
-
Another "statistic" that is meaningless is that if you have a gun in your home, you're much more likely to die with it than to use it in a home defense. This is only true because when people want to commit suicide, they use a gun if they have it.
Also, depending on where you live, there may be a strong incentive not to report a home defense unless shots were fired.
-
Carbon monoxide poisoning has to be about the best way to go. I had a mild case once. You get sleepy, pass out, and never wake back up.
My worry with that would be failing the attempt but far enough in that I only came out with brain damage.Really not sure what someone else's suicidal tendencies have to do with my right to protect myself, my friends, and my family. Either way someone could die. I'm more worried about those who want to live than those who don't.
My post wasn't so much a value judgement on that front; to some extent I agree with you. I was just trying to refute the idea that the number of people who commit suicide with a gun is "meaningless", because I absolutely think that should be part of the discussion.
-
My post wasn't so much a value judgement on that front; to some extent I agree with you. I was just trying to refute the idea that how many people commit suicide with a gun is "meaningless".
Fair enough, I'm just used to people trying to use "Your guns are bad because someone on the other side of the country might kill himself with his!" illogic on me
. Knee-jerk reaction on my part.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
Pro-tip: Don't live in D.C.
-
Fair enough, certainly some people would not go through with it if they didn't have access to a gun. It's certainly not enough to contribute ALL suicides by guns to the discussion, and depending on how much it is, I would still say it's not relevant to the discussion.
-
-
I could move it over here if you like:
I expected the "Does not exist or is private" page, but it redirects to http://what.thedailywtf.com/404, which is a completely blank page.
-
Our liberals are sure intent on aborting all their kids, and that's kind of eugenic! I figure in a generation or two the U.S. will swing wildly conservative again as a result.
That is a strawman argument. Abortion rates do nothing to actual birth rates, long term. There was a short period after the passage of Roe V Wade when it did drop, but it came back up in short order. People who have abortions do not have less kids as a result, they merely have them later in life when they plan to.
And besides, abortion rates are going down and have been for a long time.
Guns fit that bill probably more than anything else... to the point where if I were suicidal, perhaps the "best" way to do it would be to go out and buy one.
That is just a fucking idiotic statement. So you are saying that if a person is suicidal, they are going to take the time to go to their local sporting goods or gun store and plunk down a few hundred dollars, go back home and do the deed? You did not think that through, did you?
My post wasn't so much a value judgement on that front; to some extent I agree with you. I was just trying to refute the idea that the number of people who commit suicide with a gun is "meaningless", because I absolutely think that should be part of the discussion.
But this is the same kind of bullshit, cherry-picking statistics to suit your needs that I see all the time. I think it was Mother Jones (what a waste of paper that hunk of shit is) that showed gun deaths in the US and included suicides, people killed by police AND those who were shot by people defending themselves legitimately. They inflated their numbers roughly 10X by careful cherry-picking.
Unless you've got massively wide open spaces, like, say, an indoor olympic swimming pool, I don't see why you should calculate with any longer distances.
No swimming pool, but I have a pretty big house. The hallway to the master bedroom (and other rooms) is 48' (I had to measure it when we replaced flooring). Counting the room that it leads from, I could potentially have a LOS of around 70-80'? I also have two noisy dogs that would give me a good heads up and a Glock 22 in a bedside lockbox that opens in just a few seconds.
Unless I open the bedroom door and they are right there, I stand a pretty good chance. ;)
-
Skipping half the thread. I'm really getting sick of everything turning political, or rather, of conservative twats turning everything into a potshot against liberals that turns into a huge political debate. I would honestly not be surprised if a thread was posted that started out:
I'm getting an error in Apache. Must be liberal SJWs changing my packets. Thanks, Obama!
Nobody fucking cares.
-
You really shouldn't give us any ideas.
-
Yeah, I thought about running with it.
-
I'm really getting sick of everything turning political, or rather, of conservative twats turning everything into a potshot against liberals that turns into a huge political debate.
You opened a thread specifically about a guy fired for owning a gun, and you expected it NOT to be political?< obligatory>Typical braindead liberal mentality< /obligatory>
(For what it's worth, I'm not even a conservative!)
-
You opened a thread specifically about a guy fired for owning a gun, and you expected it NOT to be political?
To be fair, the thread title could have been anything, since the forum allows anyone to change topic titles at will. (bad ideas thread,
, etc)
-
I blame Obama for Apache configurations in general, and I'm not even American.
I'm really getting sick of everything turning political, or rather, of conservative twats turning everything into a potshot against liberals...
The liberal potshotting and casual construction of hysterically inflammable straw men does get tedious after a while, but I'd assert that this is a problem with not knowing how to argue than things turning political. There's a line between debate and a fight, and that line is made of fallacies and lies.
In the UK there's been a surprisingly strong anti-immigration movement, and a worryingly large number of people buying into the hate. I can see it's easy to buy into the hate, but at least buy into the correct hate. Did immigrants crash our banks and pay them off to make up for it? I guess the bank owners and some politicians could be immigrants...
-
Did immigrants crash our banks and pay them off to make up for it?
Did the banks groom girls to be raped and then rape them?
In the UK there's been a surprisingly strong anti-immigration movement, and a worryingly large number of people buying into the hate.
I really don't follow UK politics, but in the US, anti-immigration sentiments are often dismissed as hate, too. I guess some people probably are hating the brown man, but it's pretty tedious to call everyone who disagrees with you a hater.
-
Nobody fucking cares.
Except for the vitriol, this is how I feel about the threads that devolve into CSS wars.
conservative twats
Sweet, sweet misogyny.
-
OK here goes...
Source: http://mark.reid.name/blog/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html - some good number-crunching of wikipedia stats.
Yes, higher gun ownership means higher deaths per capita by gun. However, FAR higher correlation can be drawn between gun homicide and lawlessness.
Two extreme examples:
- Switzerland has around 45 guns per 100 people, but one of the lowest crime rates on the planet. The guns are taken home after military service, ammo is tightly controlled, spot checks are carried out and there is practically no black market.
- Mexico has average gun ownership, but a huge black market and high lawlessness in many areas. Settling disputes by bullet is pretty common.
The USA is a bit of an edge case in most statistics. High gun ownership, relatively lawful, but what sets it apart is the fear of violent crime is disproportionate to the crime rate.
Fear breeds reactionary opinion, which is why you have crazy at both ends of the spectrum. The sort of crazy that will demand the right for their 5 year old son to handle live firearms "out of principle", versus the sort of crazy that fires people for "having favorable opinions about firearms".To put this into perspective, we just don't have this sort of debate in Europe. We don't fear being shot at, so we don't carry guns. Shootings are uncommon in most places. Legislators understand that handling firearms is dangerous, and do their best to ensure that normal citizens are protected from crazy-with-a-gun - primarily by not letting them have one.
tl;dr: You can't gun if you don't have a gun; low crime rate means fewer shootings; America is weird; Europeans don't care.
TRWTF is crazy people, at both ends of the gun-crazy spectrum.
Radical right - Wikipedia
