media matters

[old salt]

and how much you personally added to GDP because of that 27 year taxpayer investment in you

You're right. The 27 years of military service were a waste.

What part of I've told you several times now: I'm thrilled what you did with your military career

You're THAT bored, and so looking for an argument that you're going to intentionally clip the part where I champion your military service?

Cool. Maybe go walk your dogs.

...you toss so much smack my way, it's impossible to know when & if you're serious.

[a fan]

and how much you personally added to GDP because of that 27 year taxpayer investment in you

You're right. The 27 years of military service were a waste.

What part of I've told you several times now: I'm thrilled what you did with your military career

You're THAT bored, and so looking for an argument that you're going to intentionally clip the part where I champion your military service?

Cool. Maybe go walk your dogs.

...you toss so much smack my way, it's impossible to know when & if you're serious.

You want to go back to being gracious?

Let's do it. I'll start. I'm DELIGHTED to tone it way the F down.

You're a good egg, and I have serious intellectual disagreements with you that we can argue over until we're hoarse, but I'm over the moon grateful for youre 27 (!) years of service, followed by taking alllll you learned, and adding to American's GDP. You're the American dream just as much as I am. I'd buy you a steak dinner anytime, anywhere.

Have a nice night.

[old salt]

and how much you personally added to GDP because of that 27 year taxpayer investment in you

You're right. The 27 years of military service were a waste.

What part of I've told you several times now: I'm thrilled what you did with your military career

You're THAT bored, and so looking for an argument that you're going to intentionally clip the part where I champion your military service?

Cool. Maybe go walk your dogs.

...you toss so much smack my way, it's impossible to know when & if you're serious.

You want to go back to being gracious?

Let's do it. I'll start. I'm DELIGHTED to tone it way the F down.

You're a good egg, and I have serious intellectual disagreements with you that we can argue over until we're hoarse, but I'm over the moon grateful for youre 27 (!) years of service, followed by taking alllll you learned, and adding to American's GDP. You're the American dream just as much as I am. I'd buy you a steak dinner anytime, anywhere.

Have a nice night.

Fair enough. Peace. Out.

[MDlaxfan76]

Beyond externalities, however, as a lifelong Republican I have a BIG problem with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting my personal choices that do not cost others. For instance, get out of my bedroom, damn it.

Yet you have no issue whatsoever with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting one of my personal choices that does not cost others. Get out of my gun room, dammit. I'll make the leap and suggest there are approximately 85 million fellow citizens of ours who also exercise a particular personal choice in a manner which does not cost others, who feel the same way I do.

Help the "no cost to others" gun owners (99.99% of us) understand.

There are very large externalities from unregulated guns.

Indeed, they are designed for such potential. Some are designed solely for such.

I own 9 guns, and because I am responsible at such, I have no issue with regulating the usage of them for the public good.

I’ve explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend.

I comprehend fine. What I refuse to accept is my rights and responsible usage of said rights being subject to an "interest balanced" policy based evidence making narrative regarding firearms and the public good. I've explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend. I do have a solution, however: I'm going to merge our bedroom and gun room together, and put a "No Government" placard on the door. Problem solved!

You do you.
You are in the minority of gun owners, most of whom embrace common sense regulation of guns, including substantially tougher than typical today. They understand those externalities.

And that’s just the gun owners, like me and all of my family, most of whom were or are long term Republicans. The younger are all now Dems, yet most are gun owners too.

But go ahead and deny these externalities. You simply aren’t going to persuade others that they don’t exist and you aren’t going to persuade anyone as to your notion of absolute unfettered rights to own, keep, carry and use any “arms” you wish, nor anyone, anytime, any where, any how they wish.

That’s an extreme view and rejected by a vast majority of your fellow Americans.

We are now back to the same never ending discussion. Who determines what are " common sense " gun regulations as opposed to knee jerk reactions from people who don't like one particular type of weapon? I'm not a fan of AR 15 type weapons used as a primary home defense weapon. I'm also as wary of someone firing a 12 gauge shotgun with a rifled slug. If you have never fired such a round or been trained on the recoil a 12 gauge shotgun has your a danger to everyone around you. You already know MD how powerful the recoil can be on a 12 gauge, even if your firing a game load shell. I've also put a lot of 12 gauge rounds down range and dusted more than my fair share of clay pigeons. My dads 12 gauge JC Higgins shotgun he used to hunt deer with was a weapon the deserved all of the respect in the world.

Our democratic, representative government process.

[MDlaxfan76]

Beyond externalities, however, as a lifelong Republican I have a BIG problem with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting my personal choices that do not cost others. For instance, get out of my bedroom, damn it.

Yet you have no issue whatsoever with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting one of my personal choices that does not cost others. Get out of my gun room, dammit. I'll make the leap and suggest there are approximately 85 million fellow citizens of ours who also exercise a particular personal choice in a manner which does not cost others, who feel the same way I do.

Help the "no cost to others" gun owners (99.99% of us) understand.

There are very large externalities from unregulated guns.

Indeed, they are designed for such potential. Some are designed solely for such.

I own 9 guns, and because I am responsible at such, I have no issue with regulating the usage of them for the public good.

I’ve explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend.

I comprehend fine. What I refuse to accept is my rights and responsible usage of said rights being subject to an "interest balanced" policy based evidence making narrative regarding firearms and the public good. I've explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend. I do have a solution, however: I'm going to merge our bedroom and gun room together, and put a "No Government" placard on the door. Problem solved!

You do you.
You are in the minority of gun owners, most of whom embrace common sense regulation of guns, including substantially tougher than typical today. They understand those externalities.

And that’s just the gun owners, like me and all of my family, most of whom were or are long term Republicans. The younger are all now Dems, yet most are gun owners too.

But go ahead and deny these externalities. You simply aren’t going to persuade others that they don’t exist and you aren’t going to persuade anyone as to your notion of absolute unfettered rights to own, keep, carry and use any “arms” you wish, nor anyone, anytime, any where, any how they wish.

That’s an extreme view and rejected by a vast majority of your fellow Americans.

Not denying externalities, and not sure how you define "extreme views". You must not hang out with many gun owners, other than folks at the Member's Only skeet club. Most I know - regardless of political affiliation - feel pretty strongly that existing regulations are not being enforced properly, and that proposed solutions seem to be focused on law abiding rather than criminal activities. I have no notion of absolute and unfettered anything on my end. There are 20,000+ gun related laws on the books, and acquiring and utilizing firearms is a rather heavily regulated thing, no? I do take issue with arbitrary political partizan BS definitions and blustering of what is common sense, at the expense of focusing on actual solutions which can make a difference in America's criminal violence scourge. My posts on Sensible Thread rarely receive any acknowledgement of "alternate solutions" even those with concrete evidence behind them. Instead of emotions.

I have never made a post putting words in your mouth, like you just did for me, while painting me into the "extremist corner" which is a form of high moral ground security blanket (as best as I can discern).

Baloney. I specifically said that I believe that government Should regulate in areas With externalities. I had defined the term as personal or corporate actions that have a cost to others. You responded with a claim that guns do not have a cost to others.

Externalities, thus appropriate role for government, not some absolute right for which democratic, representative responses have no place.

I’ve followed and engaged with you numerous times on the topic, respectfully, however I find your weaselly attempts to deny what you literally said to be faithless argumentation.

Moreover, your attempts to paint me as a “Members Only skeet club” denizen, ( which I’m not) I find to be purposely deceitful as you have no basis at all to suggest such. I bet I’ve spent as much or more time walking fields and in blinds in my lifetime than you, as well as bars, diners, and picking houses with fellow hunters than anyone on here including you. What I haven’t done is hang out with militia types or generally with anyone who uses guns in ‘sport’ with human targets. But yes with my fair share of law enforcement. That’s not sport.

I’ve engaged with you on that thread and what I see is a refusal to recognize government’s appropriate role with actually regulating guns, and instead attempts to divert attention to other actions. In general, some of those ideas might be helpful as well, however you have literally argued that you have a personal 2nd Amendment right that cannot be abridged. Wrong on its face, but it’s a position shared with a small, but highly vocal minority of gun owners. Most gun owners disagree.

I’m fine with discussing pragmatic gun regulations that achieve the goals but with as light a touch as practical for responsible gun owners, but the argument that such regulations are an abridgment of Constitutional rights is specious.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Beyond externalities, however, as a lifelong Republican I have a BIG problem with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting my personal choices that do not cost others. For instance, get out of my bedroom, damn it.

Yet you have no issue whatsoever with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting one of my personal choices that does not cost others. Get out of my gun room, dammit. I'll make the leap and suggest there are approximately 85 million fellow citizens of ours who also exercise a particular personal choice in a manner which does not cost others, who feel the same way I do.

Help the "no cost to others" gun owners (99.99% of us) understand.

There are very large externalities from unregulated guns.

Indeed, they are designed for such potential. Some are designed solely for such.

I own 9 guns, and because I am responsible at such, I have no issue with regulating the usage of them for the public good.

I’ve explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend.

I comprehend fine. What I refuse to accept is my rights and responsible usage of said rights being subject to an "interest balanced" policy based evidence making narrative regarding firearms and the public good. I've explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend. I do have a solution, however: I'm going to merge our bedroom and gun room together, and put a "No Government" placard on the door. Problem solved!

You do you.
You are in the minority of gun owners, most of whom embrace common sense regulation of guns, including substantially tougher than typical today. They understand those externalities.

And that’s just the gun owners, like me and all of my family, most of whom were or are long term Republicans. The younger are all now Dems, yet most are gun owners too.

But go ahead and deny these externalities. You simply aren’t going to persuade others that they don’t exist and you aren’t going to persuade anyone as to your notion of absolute unfettered rights to own, keep, carry and use any “arms” you wish, nor anyone, anytime, any where, any how they wish.

That’s an extreme view and rejected by a vast majority of your fellow Americans.

Not denying externalities, and not sure how you define "extreme views". You must not hang out with many gun owners, other than folks at the Member's Only skeet club. Most I know - regardless of political affiliation - feel pretty strongly that existing regulations are not being enforced properly, and that proposed solutions seem to be focused on law abiding rather than criminal activities. I have no notion of absolute and unfettered anything on my end. There are 20,000+ gun related laws on the books, and acquiring and utilizing firearms is a rather heavily regulated thing, no? I do take issue with arbitrary political partizan BS definitions and blustering of what is common sense, at the expense of focusing on actual solutions which can make a difference in America's criminal violence scourge. My posts on Sensible Thread rarely receive any acknowledgement of "alternate solutions" even those with concrete evidence behind them. Instead of emotions.

I have never made a post putting words in your mouth, like you just did for me, while painting me into the "extremist corner" which is a form of high moral ground security blanket (as best as I can discern).

Baloney. I specifically said that I believe that government Should regulate in areas With externalities. I had defined the term as personal or corporate actions that have a cost to others. You responded with a claim that guns do not have a cost to others.

Externalities, thus appropriate role for government, not some absolute right for which democratic, representative responses have no place.

I’ve followed and engaged with you numerous times on the topic, respectfully, however I find your weaselly attempts to deny what you literally said to be faithless argumentation.

Moreover, your attempts to paint me as a “Members Only skeet club” denizen, ( which I’m not) I find to be purposely deceitful as you have no basis at all to suggest such. I bet I’ve spent as much or more time walking fields and in blinds in my lifetime than you, as well as bars, diners, and picking houses with fellow hunters than anyone on here including you. What I haven’t done is hang out with militia types or generally with anyone who uses guns in ‘sport’ with human targets. But yes with my fair share of law enforcement. That’s not sport.

I’ve engaged with you on that thread and what I see is a refusal to recognize government’s appropriate role with actually regulating guns, and instead attempts to divert attention to other actions. In general, some of those ideas might be helpful as well, however you have literally argued that you have a personal 2nd Amendment right that cannot be abridged. Wrong on its face, but it’s a position shared with a small, but highly vocal minority of gun owners. Most gun owners disagree.

I’m fine with discussing pragmatic gun regulations that achieve the goals but with as light a touch as practical for responsible gun owners, but the argument that such regulations are an abridgment of Constitutional rights is specious.

I dropped my reply over on Sensible to unhijack this thread.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/30/business ... index.html

More Elon

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.foxnews.com/

[Typical Lax Dad]

[NattyBohChamps04]

Is the press ‘sanewashing’ Trump?

the idea is that major mainstream news outlets are routinely taking his incoherent, highly abnormal rants—be they on social media or at in-person events—and selectively quoting from them to emphasize lines that, in isolation, might sound coherent or normal, thus giving a misleading impression of the whole for people who didn’t read or watch the entire thing.

Sounds about right from my experience. He's been doing this for a while, but it's really ramped up this go-around.

Republicans should have been demanding his removal as loudly or louder than Biden's.

[MDlaxfan76]

Is the press ‘sanewashing’ Trump?

the idea is that major mainstream news outlets are routinely taking his incoherent, highly abnormal rants—be they on social media or at in-person events—and selectively quoting from them to emphasize lines that, in isolation, might sound coherent or normal, thus giving a misleading impression of the whole for people who didn’t read or watch the entire thing.

Sounds about right from my experience. He's been doing this for a while, but it's really ramped up this go-around.

Republicans should have been demanding his removal as loudly or louder than Biden's.

My son says anyone who is willing to watch an entire speech by Trump start to finish and still wants to vote for Trump, ok...but if you can't do that, shouldn't vote for Trump...

[Farfromgeneva]

Beyond externalities, however, as a lifelong Republican I have a BIG problem with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting my personal choices that do not cost others. For instance, get out of my bedroom, damn it.

Yet you have no issue whatsoever with government, even democratically elected majority government, limiting one of my personal choices that does not cost others. Get out of my gun room, dammit. I'll make the leap and suggest there are approximately 85 million fellow citizens of ours who also exercise a particular personal choice in a manner which does not cost others, who feel the same way I do.

Help the "no cost to others" gun owners (99.99% of us) understand.

There are very large externalities from unregulated guns.

Indeed, they are designed for such potential. Some are designed solely for such.

I own 9 guns, and because I am responsible at such, I have no issue with regulating the usage of them for the public good.

I’ve explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend.

I comprehend fine. What I refuse to accept is my rights and responsible usage of said rights being subject to an "interest balanced" policy based evidence making narrative regarding firearms and the public good. I've explained this ad nauseum, you just refuse to comprehend. I do have a solution, however: I'm going to merge our bedroom and gun room together, and put a "No Government" placard on the door. Problem solved!

You do you.
You are in the minority of gun owners, most of whom embrace common sense regulation of guns, including substantially tougher than typical today. They understand those externalities.

And that’s just the gun owners, like me and all of my family, most of whom were or are long term Republicans. The younger are all now Dems, yet most are gun owners too.

But go ahead and deny these externalities. You simply aren’t going to persuade others that they don’t exist and you aren’t going to persuade anyone as to your notion of absolute unfettered rights to own, keep, carry and use any “arms” you wish, nor anyone, anytime, any where, any how they wish.

That’s an extreme view and rejected by a vast majority of your fellow Americans.

Not denying externalities, and not sure how you define "extreme views". You must not hang out with many gun owners, other than folks at the Member's Only skeet club. Most I know - regardless of political affiliation - feel pretty strongly that existing regulations are not being enforced properly, and that proposed solutions seem to be focused on law abiding rather than criminal activities. I have no notion of absolute and unfettered anything on my end. There are 20,000+ gun related laws on the books, and acquiring and utilizing firearms is a rather heavily regulated thing, no? I do take issue with arbitrary political partizan BS definitions and blustering of what is common sense, at the expense of focusing on actual solutions which can make a difference in America's criminal violence scourge. My posts on Sensible Thread rarely receive any acknowledgement of "alternate solutions" even those with concrete evidence behind them. Instead of emotions.

I have never made a post putting words in your mouth, like you just did for me, while painting me into the "extremist corner" which is a form of high moral ground security blanket (as best as I can discern).

Baloney. I specifically said that I believe that government Should regulate in areas With externalities. I had defined the term as personal or corporate actions that have a cost to others. You responded with a claim that guns do not have a cost to others.

Externalities, thus appropriate role for government, not some absolute right for which democratic, representative responses have no place.

I’ve followed and engaged with you numerous times on the topic, respectfully, however I find your weaselly attempts to deny what you literally said to be faithless argumentation.

Moreover, your attempts to paint me as a “Members Only skeet club” denizen, ( which I’m not) I find to be purposely deceitful as you have no basis at all to suggest such. I bet I’ve spent as much or more time walking fields and in blinds in my lifetime than you, as well as bars, diners, and picking houses with fellow hunters than anyone on here including you. What I haven’t done is hang out with militia types or generally with anyone who uses guns in ‘sport’ with human targets. But yes with my fair share of law enforcement. That’s not sport.

I’ve engaged with you on that thread and what I see is a refusal to recognize government’s appropriate role with actually regulating guns, and instead attempts to divert attention to other actions. In general, some of those ideas might be helpful as well, however you have literally argued that you have a personal 2nd Amendment right that cannot be abridged. Wrong on its face, but it’s a position shared with a small, but highly vocal minority of gun owners. Most gun owners disagree.

I’m fine with discussing pragmatic gun regulations that achieve the goals but with as light a touch as practical for responsible gun owners, but the argument that such regulations are an abridgment of Constitutional rights is specious.

A day in the life w Peter brown

[youthathletics]

Soldiers calling out the lie: https://x.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1834755937195737398

[OCanada]

Soldiers calling out the lie: https://x.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1834755937195737398

What soldierS? One political hack. Meanwhile how much of what Trump said was accurate? Less than 10%z. But you look to Crenshaw instead of to Trump who is a compulsive liar and coward and former President. Truth is nott on of your strong points

[Kismet]

Nothing new here - Rep. Crenshaw cherry picking military factoids is nothing new - He spouted much of this same stuff incorrectly a few weeks ago on Real Time with Bill Maher. Including a blatant misreading of the Constitution.

[a fan]

Soldiers calling out the lie: https://x.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1834755937195737398

Dude. At some point...one day....you're gonna take one week, and call out Trump's lies, right? Because this is minor league stuff that's upsetting you, by comparison.

Just so we know you notice them, spend a week on Trump's lies, and the lies you spread by "some guy on the internet".


And I thought you guys liked this tough-guy, military bases all over the world stuff, and lost your minds if anyone (gasp!) pulled out troops out? What happened to that stance?

Make up your mind. Either shut up and deal with the body count, or stop bellyaching when we take these troops the F out of these pointless countries.

(pointless in the sense of: it does us ZERO good to have our sitting ducks, er, I'm mean troops, in these nutjob countries)

Ask Old Salt about this: if I get upset about our troops dying for no reason whatsoever in these counties, he gets mad at mean. Apparently, I'm supposed to not give a sh9t about these troops for reasons he's never explained. And if I point out that they're dying for no tangible goal? I'm the ***hole, apparently. I'm supposed to shut up and let them die without complaining.

[youthathletics]

Soldiers calling out the lie: https://x.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1834755937195737398

What soldierS? One political hack. Meanwhile how much of what Trump said was accurate? Less than 10%z. But you look to Crenshaw instead of to Trump who is a compulsive liar and coward and former President. Truth is nott on of your strong points

Did you watch the entire video of "The Soldiers", like Prego...."its in there".

[youthathletics]

Soldiers calling out the lie: https://x.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1834755937195737398

Dude. At some point...one day....you're gonna take one week, and call out Trump's lies, right? Because this is minor league stuff that's upsetting you, by comparison.

Just so we know you notice them, spend a week on Trump's lies, and the lies you spread by "some guy on the internet".


And I thought you guys liked this tough-guy, military bases all over the world stuff, and lost your minds if anyone (gasp!) pulled out troops out? What happened to that stance?

Make up your mind. Either shut up and deal with the body count, or stop bellyaching when we take these troops the F out of these pointless countries.

(pointless in the sense of: it does us ZERO good to have our sitting ducks, er, I'm mean troops, in these nutjob countries)

Ask Old Salt about this: if I get upset about our troops dying for no reason whatsoever in these counties, he gets mad at mean. Apparently, I'm supposed to not give a sh9t about these troops for reasons he's never explained. And if I point out that they're dying for no tangible goal? I'm the ***hole, apparently. I'm supposed to shut up and let them die without complaining.

And how many times do YOU need to be told, what value is it to lambast Trump..this place is already riddled with that already, non stop. I'm not upset at all....it's rather comical that you all think Trump was the only one that lied.

If you want to continue to discuss the 10mile diversion you just inserted about soldiers placed globally, we can move to that topic if you'd like?

Otherwise....maybe you can take 1 post, to acknowledge KH also lied at.....or maybe your recent post was your way of saying that, without actually saying it.

[Kismet]

Soldiers calling out the lie: https://x.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1834755937195737398

Dude. At some point...one day....you're gonna take one week, and call out Trump's lies, right? Because this is minor league stuff that's upsetting you, by comparison.

Just so we know you notice them, spend a week on Trump's lies, and the lies you spread by "some guy on the internet".


And I thought you guys liked this tough-guy, military bases all over the world stuff, and lost your minds if anyone (gasp!) pulled out troops out? What happened to that stance?

Make up your mind. Either shut up and deal with the body count, or stop bellyaching when we take these troops the F out of these pointless countries.

(pointless in the sense of: it does us ZERO good to have our sitting ducks, er, I'm mean troops, in these nutjob countries)

Ask Old Salt about this: if I get upset about our troops dying for no reason whatsoever in these counties, he gets mad at mean. Apparently, I'm supposed to not give a sh9t about these troops for reasons he's never explained. And if I point out that they're dying for no tangible goal? I'm the ***hole, apparently. I'm supposed to shut up and let them die without complaining.

And how many times do YOU need to be told, what value is it to lambast Trump..this place is already riddled with that already, non stop. I'm not upset at all....it's rather comical that you all think Trump was the only one that lied.

If you want to continue to discuss the 10mile diversion you just inserted about soldiers placed globally, we can move to that topic if you'd like?

Otherwise....maybe you can take 1 post, to acknowledge KH also lied at.....or maybe your recent post was your way of saying that, without actually saying it.

At some point , Orange Fatso is so bad, that you might have to cut the opposition a little slack so as to beat him hopefully for the last time.

You cannot, in good conscious, support all the BS he is spouting. I have confidence that you might agree.

The choices we have are the choices - take the lesser of two evils for now and continue to work for a more optimal solution. Fatso is NOT any kind of solution to any of the issues we currently face IMHO

[a fan]

And how many times do YOU need to be told, what value is it to lambast Trump..this place is already riddled with that already, non stop. I'm not upset at all....it's rather comical that you all think Trump was the only one that lied.

I didn't say that....I said that's minor league by way of comparison. Which is 100% accurate, my man.

If you want to continue to discuss the 10mile diversion you just inserted about soldiers placed globally, we can move to that topic if you'd like?

Not a diversion. It's more of Republican "no matter what the Dems do, we'll throw stones." that guys like you miss when you share this garbage.

So which is it? If Biden leaves these countries, he's weak. If the troops he uses to slaughter terrorists (and collateral civilians), that's bad.

I'm sick of party first, country second. You've forgotten that we didn't use to play this game, and supported the opposition when they did the stuff we wanted them to do overseas. This garbage is wrecking our nation, and you know it.

Otherwise....maybe you can take 1 post, to acknowledge KH also lied at.....or maybe your recent post was your way of saying that, without actually saying it.

I did. Not my fault you missed it. Called it minor league. Which it is.