Matt
Active Member
7 is too many IMO. And unless you're prepping for a shooting war, I don't see a need to own that many firearms.
The News Thread
- Thread starter Jimmy... Dead.
- Start date
7 is too many IMO. And unless you're prepping for a shooting war, I don't see a need to own that many firearms.
Dak
mentat
A shooting war wouldn't require that many firearms. Very few persons in the military are issued more than two. Having that many is either about fun or function. IE: The weapon you carry daily is going to be different than your deer hunting rifle which is going to be different from your bird hunting shotgun which is going to be different from your varmint shooter which is going to be different from your full size pistol you enjoy shooting which is different from your AR you have because this is MURKA.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Very good--so let me ask this: Why should we default to "Well, there's not enough proof either way, so we might as well move ahead with the nomination" rather than "Well, there's not enough proof either way, so we might as well find someone else"?
Why is our default to proceed as though nothing happened?
The alternative being that Bill Clinton should be... what, locked away?
Again, I'm not saying there's proof to imprison Kavanaugh.
...Yes. Yes, you should--particularly when it's fitness to the "highest court in the land."
I got drunk plenty of times as a young high-schooler/undergrad. I never pinned a girl to a bed or forcibly held anyone down. For that matter, I never assaulted anyone, got a drunk driving arrest, or even fucking trespassed.
It is possible to be a decent human being and still get drunk. The problem here is that Kavanaugh is quite clearly not a decent human being.
It's not a decline of democracy. Democracy worked just fine. (see this blog, second paragraph)
We haven't declined into anything; this is just a resurgence of the same old American greatness. It's been around for centuries.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
With this logic, there's no sense to own more than one car because you can't drive more than one at a time, you don't need different baseball bats because you only hit with one at a time, you don't need 5 sets of golf clubs because you're only allowed one set of 14 in official play, etc.
It's like anything dealing with hobbies. Why do you only have one of what you like doing? I own two drum kits. Surely I only need one because I can't play both at the same time. What if they break? What if i crack cymbals? Then those extra sets I have come in handy, don't they?
rms
Active Member
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
rms
Active Member
Einherjar86
Active Member
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
Based on what? All I've seen is that he engaged in underaged drinking and pre-marital sex while a high school sports stud. I don't think that disqualifies him from anything. More witnesses have come out in support of Kavanaugh than over the accusers.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, if he physically assaulted more people than he's been nice to over the years, I doubt he'd have made it this far.
Unless you're saying that more people have come out in support of him than have in support of the accusers. But I'm sure a lot of people do believe he's a good guy. Not sure how convincing that is of anything.
Unless you're saying that more people have come out in support of him than have in support of the accusers. But I'm sure a lot of people do believe he's a good guy. Not sure how convincing that is of anything.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
I'm not talking about people that only knew Kavanaugh as a judge. People at Ford's party, beyond the accused, said it never happened. One person at Ramirez's party said it happened, though several more said it didn't. There is clearly evidence that Kavanaugh liked to party as a high school jock, and while I'm certainly aware that athletes are given more leeway to rape than non-athletes, that's hardly damning evidence and we may as well dig into the pasts of every single politician that was ever a high school or college athlete and known to attend parties.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't think it's necessary unless an accuser comes forward. Or accusers.
People at the party say it didn't happen because they probably don't remember. And Kavanaugh probably doesn't either, based on his accuser's testimony.
People at the party say it didn't happen because they probably don't remember. And Kavanaugh probably doesn't either, based on his accuser's testimony.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
What isn't necessary?
That's a possibility but not any kind of hard evidence. Some people at the party have explicitly said they believe the Yale flashing/penis touch thing didn't happen because it would have been a memorable and shocking thing, and not something that they would have forgotten.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
I'm not off the mark. Nobody refers to people who collect baseball cards or LEGO as a "nut" but people call others who engage in their 2nd amendment right "nuts" for literally no reason other than a political bias they have. It's a retarded propagandist piece of rhetoric. Same with this new label that has popped up "free speech extremist."
The conflation is definitely there and it is amplified by retarded leftist scum saying the NRA are to blame for dead kids.
lmao wrong. Many left-wing groups practice open carry at rallies. The ignorance of the right-wing is that they think the whole left-wing want to get rid of muh guns, they've clearly never met hardcore socialists and communists who also own many guns.
Somewhat untrue. Google guerilla warfare, you don't need much more than dedication, small arms and explosives to resist a military or a state.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Digging into everyone's past.
There's no hard evidence either way. I'll ask again: why is the default to disregard the accusation altogether rather than refrain from nominating a highly questionable candidate? It's not like there aren't other conservative asshats to choose from.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Draehl
Lurker
I'm not doubting guerilla warfare. It can be effective in keeping a force out, especially in the mountains/forests. My point was more that splinter military groups are going to be much more effective. Especially in some kind of radical removal of civil rights, etc. I think a lot of the military won't support it. It's the police and government agencies that are going to dance to whatever tune is played to them while military will be more likely to side with the people.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
I wonder what specific international laws would be violated, triggering outside military intervention, if the American government starts violently oppressing its citizens to the point that an armed revolt happens.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
Whose past did I advocate digging into?
The default isn't to disregard the accusation, the default is to allow the accuser to make their case and call in whichever witnesses they desire to. Then, once that is done, the accused may respond to the accuser and call upon any witnesses of their own. Then, when all is said and done, the senate can decide which case they find more believable (though I obviously acknowledge that it's a highly partisan issue and that the accusations themselves are secondary to the main purpose of confirming/rejecting a deeply-entrenched conservative Republican judge). Your default is to accept any accusation without allowing the accused to make their case, which is a problem for Republicans that don't want to become easily-manipulated pussies every time someone cries rape.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
Probably next to none, at least for the forseeable future. We are international law, we don't give much of a fuck about other countries' opinions as Iraq proved. Maybe in 100 years China will be powerful enough to make some kind of move if they wanted to, though by that point I don't see why they'd care.
