LA Grant

Is this article not a slightly more grounded version of "crisis actors" conspiracy? It reads to me as incredibly disingenuous. Because this seems to be implying that because other organizations have come to support the Parkland kids organize the march and walk-out, the kids are therefore illegitimate. If the overall point were to merely say "there are more mechanics at work behind the scenes here" then why not also explore the machinery of the opposing forces, as well? There'd be no shortage of cogs & gears to examine from the gun lobby's smear campaigns. On the surface, he's justifying his article by arguing there's not enough coverage on the BTS organizations helping organize the march and walk out... But he's also citing his story from Buzzfeed, which has a much larger audience. Perhaps he's not being disingenuous and he's a media watchdog. I haven't read his back catalog. From this, though, what he appears to be suggesting is there's not enough coverage that the Parkland kids should be ignored beyond the easily dismissed "crisis actor" conspiracy theorists. This article then fills that gap for the slightly-less-loony wing of the right. Or, idk... what was your interpretation?

Haha, yeah, ya Plato's cave-dwellin' b*tch. I'm sure the sun is scary when you've been staring at shadows on the wall for as long as you have, but yelling "fake news" at it doesn't make it any less warm and bright. Facts. On at least the last two pages of this thread, only Tiberius and myself made any reference toward facts from the actual goddamn news from the real world. Does anyone here get their news at least partly from the NY Times? Or is it only memes, American Thinker op-eds, and speculative message board fantasies? The rest have been weak jokes, weaker bullying attempts, and some profoundly depressed dreamers. "Threatening to decide to launch a potential trade war" would be from MagaMan himself, ya old c*nt. You seem to be struggling with definitions lately. If these symptoms persist, you may want to make an appointment with Dr. Harold Bornstein to see if there's any treatment for such a 'disease.' At the very least, a helmet to prevent you from getting sniped from the balcony. Can you provide a list of every time you've employed this sh*tty rhetorical device? In fact, don't list all of them. Just list the first 10 where you actually stayed in the pocket of a debate, or provided information on your own, or stayed in the debate after said information was provided for your lazy ass, ya smug pr*ck. We'll wait.

Do you actually read the news before you post? Of all the posts on this page, Tiberius's was the only one with actual facts in it; the rest are speculation or extremely bad "jokes." Every post before Tiberius's had typos in it, as did the posts after. Why not go after those? Nor did he "post a theory" as he was clearly referring to reports of the developing story; either way, concluding that he was "claim[ing] it as fact" is a leap considering the way he included "apparently" as a qualifier. Even if we take Tiberius's post in the worst light possible, it is still far more considerate & coherent than row_33's drive-by graffiti on his best day. I don't know either of you, nor do I care, but typos can be chalked up to mistake. Harder to find an innocent explanation for your post, though. It's just some lame ass "shoot the messenger" bullsh*t. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/us/politics/trump-tariffs-steel-aluminum.html https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-was-angry-unglued-when-he-started-trade-war-officials-n852641

Of course. "Any person one disagrees with politically" is a blowhard. Pompous, egotistical, talking mad sh*t... yeah, I hear you, I see it. Apologies for offending. So, for you, you'd be... what? A "blowsoft"? Seems like a good way to describe one who deals out soft blows, or someone who blows off. Blowhard or go home.

Yeah I gotcha. I understood why you were asking. I get the reasoning. Just not why it mattered. Meaning, you could've made the same point without the additional step of asking my age, then my opinion, to make the point that the MSM was complicit in the intelligence community's lies in the lead up to the Iraq War. Not only does it cut down on the annoying back & forth, it keeps the discussion focused on the issue at hand. The reason the questions can "appear" to be in bad faith is because it presumes there'd be a wrong answer to it. As it happens, I was old enough at the time to be following the story, discussing it, and debating it, to the ability one is able in HS, while you were around 5-8 years older following the story in College. But if I was, say, 6 in 2001, instead of in HS, then I'd be in my early 20s now instead of 30s. If that were the case, I would've been too young to have been following the news at that time, but would have still been able to understand your point here either way (theoretically), or would have benefitted from you making the point as it would've then been educational rather than merely rhetorical. If you feel you're capable of sharing your knowledge, it should be "worth" it to do so in a way that is beneficial rather than only self-serving. Similarly, if you were 5-8 years younger than I, that wouldn't mean you shouldn't be entitled to make your point. If it were an effort to merely "get to know me," then the better or more polite way would be to say "I don't know how old you were at the time, but I was in college, and I can say with that experience..." and then on to your point, and still free to request the information. Why am I droning on about this? I'm not assuming, or trying to not assume, you intended anything other innocent intentions; easy to chalk it up as miscommunication. I'm droning on about the larger idea, which is connected to what we were talking about before in terms of truth & honesty — I oppose the idea that any individual is not entitled to opinions based on physical characteristics or certain qualifications. Those opinions can be wrong, their arguments can be invalid, and people with wrong/invalid opinions aren't entitled to being heard or respected; we're free to disagree, in other words. I imagine we agree on this, so I'm just explaining the reasoning for why one could take issue with questions of age, identity, etc — the question (perhaps unintentionally) implies there's a wrong answer when there really shouldn't be, not on those grounds.

I'd bet playing in a dome has to appeal to Cousins, too.

I'm sure there are a number of suckers in the Academy who will vote for Three Billboards, but my hope and bet is that it doesn't win except for acting categories. I feel like the obvious pick for Best Picture is The Shape of Water. BUT Best Picture is usually a curveball, so I'm going to place my bets on....... either Get Out or Dunkirk for the "surprise win."

I know you answered in the gun thread, I was saying you didn't (initially) answer the question in this thread. To be clear, this was the order of events here: Anyway. Thanks for answering with your recent post. College in 2001 means you're in your 30s, maybe early 40s? That range? So less than a 10 year gap then. There's the question of "why should this matter to begin with" but I'd rather just move on & discuss the issues. Not trying to be overly pedantic — merely asking for fair play.

There's compelling evidence to support this suspicion from a number of sources. Michael Wolff's book explored that possibility investigatively with primary sources & inside access. The free excerpt covers it, actually: https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html?utm_source=nym_press I'd guess Fire & Fury is probably thoroughly dismissed on this board because Wolff is a flawed author, which — that's fine. I won't get into defending Wolff specifically; there are other sources to support the suspicion that Trump ran on a lark, which can be found through a little Googling. Point is, we can't be 100% sure, and it's always difficult to prove one's motives, so a suspicion is all we can reasonably have. The best evidence that Wolff's work is probably mostly true comes from the George Costanza Theory of Trump: everything he tweets is usually the exact opposite of reality. I also suspect that if Trump had successfully won his bid for the Bills, he wouldn't have ran, but who knows.

Before we get into the weeds — hold up here, Rhino. You began by asking me a pretty invasive question about my age, on a message board where we all enjoy a degree of anonymity. I asked you the same question. You didn't respond. What's up with that? You did that in the gun thread, too. So this is two times you've endeavored to "get to know me" but both times they were presented in less than good faith. Good faith would be you offering first, then requesting a return, rather than demanding I come toward you with the promise that you'll maybe play fair. You didn't. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but, at the very least, you'll need to return the favor you asked for & tell me how old you are (approximately) + where you were in 2001. Who are the specific people? Not a trick question. Genuinely curious. Media partisanship exists, yes, no argument. The tricky thing is that the dishonesty is not equally spread. The dishonest thrive on the false equivalency between left and right. The MSM, especially CNN, are extraordinarily guilty of propagating "both sides"-isms way more than they're guilty of pushing the liberal agenda. Fox News (for just one example) very intentionally exploits this weakness in our overall system of discussion as the foundation for their entire brand, pretending that because "the mainstream media" push a liberal agenda, it's okay for them to completely slant their coverage and misrepresent stories constantly. (There are liberal versions of this too with the same but opposite reasoning). One side could say "we should start using mustard gas against our political opponents" and the other could say "you can't do that because it would be inhumane not to mention illegal." CNN would report this as "Washington deadlocked in partisan debate on law enforcement." Some ideas are dumb and bad, but they get treated with kids gloves -- partly because MSM media have a fear of being labeled elitists, and partly because theoretically in a democratic society, all ideas are equal, and they're trying to serve that ideal and be representative. Because U.S. politics are divided into the two-party system, we are all under the working assumption that all ideas as equally valid. But this is ridiculous, because not all ideas are equally valid. Some things are wrong. The idea that the sun comes out of the ground every day is obviously wrong, even if we get to a point where a percentage of the public insist that it's true. To keep this about the Intelligence Community, here's a post from Reddit Politics re: Nunes that sums up what I'm trying to say. Theoretically, yes, you're right, or, I agree. Practically speaking, the NYT and InfoWars have developed their reputations through their body of work. We can say that someone who can barely bench the bar & someone who can deadlift 300lbs are both equally "bodybuilders" — but we'd be kidding ourselves if we said they are equal in strength when they go into the weight room, even though they're both allowed to use the equipment. I think, genuinely, that it is good to be skeptical about the media, and to be concerned about propaganda. When I was a teacher, I made it a priority for students to "read between the lines." Simply because you are reading something — in a book, online, whatever it is — does not mean it is the objective truth. So in a sense, theoretically anyway, we agree on this principle. The thing I'm cautioning against is propaganda is not simply coming from the government. Our society & system of government is complicated, or more accurately, convoluted. Where does power come from? What gives the officials power? Do they have power, and how is it wielded? What gives the Constitution power? Does it have power? Theoretically, the answers to most of those would be "the people." In practice, "the people" = "money." Money talks & money makes propaganda. (Not saying this next sentence is you personally) I've always been puzzled by the right's willingness to believe that, say, George Soros paid for protests, or the Women's March, or whatever else, and equal unwillingness to entertain any ideas about the Mercers, Kochs, or the NRA as thoroughly crooked, corrupting influences — despite the latter examples having clearer and more damning evidence. I think it comes down to the false equivalency thing I mentioned above. If one brings up the Mercers, Kochs, NRA, then the response is: "George Soros!" — it keeps everything mired in dogmatic, tribalistic ignorance.

Thanks for waiting. Defining "assault style weapon:" Practically speaking, I understand the support for the AR-15, that its presence in mass shootings is as much due to its popularity & versatility as anything else, and that other firearms can provide the same rate of fire. I agree with you that such definitions are impractical & this is why I'm not advocating for bans. Defining "assault style weapon" is essentially the same debate of defining "arms" in some ways. Is a baseball bat an assault weapon? Is it an arm? Sure, one could make the case. But if we follow the logic through to the end, it basically just ends in nihilism, right? If any object that can be used as a weapon could be used for assault is an "assault style weapon," then nothing is an assault weapon, therefore it is impossible to ban assault weapons as it can't even be defined. Banning or regulating bats is obviously completely ridiculous — will the government be keeping databases of little league teams? — therefore banning or regulating AK-47s is completely ridiculous. I possess no additional clarity on defining this than you do, and I'm inclined to say I'm not qualified to define "assault style weapon" because I'm not an expert on different makes and models of firearms, that wouldn't be my trivia category. "Qualified" implying that some definitions are necessarily technocratic, although... I don't know. It's tricky because on one hand, if you say that only the firearms trivia experts should define policy, who are the experts? Researchers? Military? NRA? https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview Theoretically(!), we live in a democracy, so ultimately the definition of it would be up to lawmakers, which is theoretically, citizens or voters or we the dirty unwashed. In the same way that Trump doesn't have to be even mostly literate to be elected president, we don't actually need to be experts, hobbyists, or lobbyists to have a say in how that is defined, and what it means in practice. In terms of applying policy, the most practical & fair solution is to keep a sensibly broad definition of "firearm" — from a crossbow to everything above, let's say — and apply it evenly. IMHO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon lol, christ almighty. This is to show that the faux-philosophical debates of one extreme or another have been "settled" (your prompt) — nobody is talking about a world where it's all or nothing, except Tasker. You asked me to get pedantic, so pedantry was supplied. I agree with the majority in the bolded. If guns are harder to get, and gun-owners want to walk around with their piece, then that's fine. Y'know, be proud, you actually had to do something, pass a bare minimum to be the walkin' wannabe sheriff of the mall movie theater. Or you want it on you when you walk the dog. Concealed carry, maybe different, seems unnecessary to me unless one is either law enforcement or with criminal intent. What are real world examples when concealed carry is necessary for Joe Gun Owner? Seems logical if you're going to have guns in public, have them in the open with the big ol' holsters and belts and whatnot. Cool with me. If you had read, or looked up some reading on your own, or even just plainly state your thoughts instead of making a f***ng Guess Who game of it, you'd see there is a reason we don't have all of the gun violence data you're requesting. Jesus f**k. Everyone in the world has to do all the work for you, I have to make the airplane noises then also chew your food for you, so you can then say I'm the lazy puck?? Good lord, man. You're how old?? No wonder the world is what it is. Your generation led to Trump and Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader so maybe we're all wrong for expecting better. Great. Agreed, the no-fly list is flawed. Agreed on not giving to the mentally ill. However, it is similar to define assault weapon. How do you define "mentally ill"? (It's the same answer as above for assault weapons or arms). How do you feel about tests to determine mentally ill? Similar to a more thorough background check? What about tests & classes in terms of competency, separate from mental illness?

Support for background checks. That's pretty damn settled. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/psdt_2017-06-22-guns-05-10/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/psdt_2017-06-22-guns-05-09/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html We also know the advocates for "unfettered access" are a small but vocal minority, as are advocates for "ban all guns," though only the extreme positions seem to be the ones discussed online. Chapter 5 of the report goes deeper into the specifics of where there is strong agreement & where there is division. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/psdt_2017-06-22-guns-05-04/ Perhaps you'd use the counterpoint of the overall decline in firearms deaths since 1993 as proof that guns aren't actually a problem, and gun control isn't necessary. Let's consider. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/#u-s-firearm-deaths The timing of the decline mostly coincides with the Brady Act and the Assault Ban, which may or may not be a factor, which is less settled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act#Opposition_by_National_Rifle_Association Nonetheless, gun deaths are on the rise in present day, up 17 percent since the Supreme Court loosened existing gun control laws in 2008 Heller decision. http://www.vpc.org/press/u-s-gun-death-rate-jumps-17-percent-since-2008-supreme-court-district-of-columbia-v-heller-decision-affirming-right-to-own-a-handgun-for-self-defense/ When Missouri repealed background checks, the result continued to show exactly what you'd expect. https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/repeal-of-missouris-background-law-associated-with-increase-in-states-murders.html 73% of murders in 2016 involved firearms. https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp It really shouldn't be an impossible computation that "more guns" = "more gun violence." Perhaps we could have additional facts for your benefit, if the NRA didn't strongly oppose additional research into the subject. Here's a juicy headline from 2003: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-proof-gun-laws-reduce-violence/ A recent study from RAND also had similar issues — the lack of available studies — but was still able to collect compelling data in favor of the measures that we continue to see receive support from the public & researchers. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/background-checks.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/02/rand-corp-urges-more-scientific-studies-gun-policies-violent-crime/383083002/ There is, of course, all of the additional data from other developed nations where stronger gun laws dramatically reduced gun violence, but I've seen you shrug that off already, so why bother with that. Looking forward to your casual two-line dismissal of all of this!!!

Correct. The gun "debate" has been settled for years, if we're being rational beings able to interpret contextual data, it was settled before 2018, and before 2015. In fact, you're also correct in comparing the issue to climate change — the data is there, and the more time lurches forward under our current broken policies, the data only grows. How many school shootings have occurred even since this thread started? For you personally, LA, is there a point in which the data becomes impossible to dismiss? What is that point? If it's "never," why? If you think the issue is that the solutions proposed by others are unworkable, what is the better solution, and how does it work in practice? I'd like to know because it'd be great if we could simply agree on facts & data, if not solutions, instead of playing dumbass political games to score fantasy points for the tribe.

I'm an adult in his 30s and I was in high school in 2001. How old were you? I understand the point about the Iraq War & I agree that many mainstream media journalists shoulder some of that blame for their role in the dissemination of bad information. I have many critiques of the mainstream media beyond that, too — lobbing softball questions to protect their access, for one, when what we need more than anything is some hardcore grilling. Sometimes that comes from the alternative press, which is necessary. But there is a tendency (not saying necessarily from you personally) to outright dismiss outlets that have earned our trust, including the NY Times, for their occasional failures, and suggest that because they can be fallible, then they are entirely unreliable, and therefore, we cannot trust the mainstream media at all, and can only trust the alternative press. To their credit, the NY Times at least owned up to their mistakes for not pressing further. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html If we saw this same level of ownership & responsibility from the alternative outlets, particularly the ones pushing partisan talking points (left & right), then perhaps an ethical comparison is justified. As it is, what I'm seeing is the exact opposite — it's doubling down on conspiracy theories like "Sandy Hook was staged," or "NFL players are protesting bc they want white genocide," or now with Q-anon.... and then when those things turn out to be entirely false, there's just this shrug like it never happened. In the interest of fair & balanced, Alex Jones did fess up to lying about Pizzagate at least... so I guess we could say then that InfoWars and the NYT are equally reputable? Idk, what do you think? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/26/521545788/conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-apologizes-for-promoting-pizzagate

Agreed, we should not outsource our thoughts to others, but this would also include outlets that the right would claim as experts/professionals. Due diligence would include a rational approach in considering different sources & their validity. Perhaps it could be argued that the left, or that I personally, adhere dogmatically to the mainstream media. Our minds are controlled by the globalists! That would be dishonest, and to be clear, similarly I am not saying you, yourself, are only reading the op-eds and partisan hackery that B-Man posts; perhaps you also read the papers with trained journalists, and prefer the alternative take. That's your right, and to belabor the sh*t out of the point even more (to avoid it being misconstrued by the dishonest among us), I'm also not saying that alternative media has no use, or is always wrong. Or that the mainstream media is always right and should be the only thing. It's not that black & white, obviously. That's a lot of saying what I'm not saying before getting to what I am saying, which is simply that facts have to matter, at some point. We have to have some collective trust in something, if not an individual institution, than at least a code of ethics, or we're just arguing what "store" means. The loss of trust in an objective "truth" is doing far more damage to our society than Tasker's nightmare fantasy of gun control leading to someone walking into his home in Rhode Island and taking his Xbox or whatever. Instead, what we are seeing increasingly, is a rise of dogmatic tribalistic histrionics. ON BOTH SIDES. Right, yes? We agree that we have seen this? So if we are "post-truth" with our media, at the very least, we could be honest as individuals. Unlike, for example...

It is worth ridicule. These fringe, unethical media outlets are a major reason why debating with the right has become increasingly impossible. We can't even agree on the dictionary definitions of "store" or "disease." But because both the NYT and Freedomguns.biz are both posted on Facebook, they are both equally reputable. It's madness.

At least you keep up the same BS distraction strategy even after it's directly called out "Focus on the individual, focus on the individual, focus on the individual." Tom, if I'm actually misunderstanding, you do possess the ability to articulate yourself differently. "Why bother" you'll say, "it's pointless." Well that's your solution to everything though isn't it?

Well, I like how you're trying to "gotcha" me on a joke, but... ok...? Do you have any actual point you're making here? No, you're just sniffing around to look for contradictions. Not within the argument, but with me and my posts. You're employing the exact same tactic as before, Tom: ignore the ideas, focus on the individual. If you can't destroy the idea, destroy the individual. Y'all have gotten so used to doing in your bubble here without being called out that you don't know what else to do when you're in an unwinnable position. For some reason, you can't stop replying, or admit to the superior argument. You're right, the 2015 thread is interesting! We were all so young. So many mass shootings still ahead of us at that point. Oh and hey, look at this — the third reply in that thread. Weren't you just telling me "no one disagrees" re: gun control? They're just "deconstructing my ignorant bulls**"? Why is it that those "deconstructions" are all memes, excuses, or semantics? You can also include your Billy Buffalo example of "deconstructing my argument" by way of "misinterpreting how humor works," similar to LAz's gotcha with The Onion link. Why aren't there any "deconstructions" that are merely a superior argument for a superior solution? You'd think such a thing would be easier to produce, considering how definitively so many seem to know gun control doesn't work & could never work.

A lot of the centrist establishment Democrats aren't learning anything from Hillary losing, unfortunately. They see the loss as solely the fault of the Russian interference, rather than her being a flawed candidate running a flawed campaign. Of course, all of these can be true, there's more than one factor at play. To the left, Hillary's main offense is that she is politically more of a Republican except for one or two issues (or rather, what a Republican used to be). Her main offense to the reactionary right (ever since she was merely a First Lady w/ ambition) was in being a mouthy woman they don't want to f***

? I do! But hey, why don't you define it for me? Then you can paste the dictionary definition and I'll tell you that it's wrong. That's how you do it, right? also hahaha I maintain that Billy Buffalo needs to be publicly shot AND that the Bills should have a cowboy mascot instead of a bison mascot. The bison logo is good, but they should own the "Buffalo Bill" pun more with their mascot, because it's a clever and unique sports nickname. (to any fool thinking "But that would involve guns, gotcha" — Yeah, no kidding, again — no one is advocating banning or removing all guns) (to any fool who misunderstands The Onion — my Billy Buffalo idea is a joke)

First sentence is ... provably not true. Second sentence is ... provably not true. Third sentence is ... provably not true. Fourth sentence is possible, but it will probably be another mass shooting.

Actually, I literally copy & pasted the dictionary definition of "disease" for you, and even connected the definition to how gun violence fits said definition. IIRC, you were also the one who brought forth the "what about opioids" argument before the topic of "why can't the CDC research gun violence" so there's a number of contradictions here. Your selective understanding whirrrr'd and cliccccck'd that out, I guess. It gets even worse, Tasker — I'm a soooooooocialist! <ghost noises> If nothing else, we would agree that "nothing exists in a vacuum." Better go hide under your bed and turn up Glenn as loud as ya can, 'cuz society's comin' for ya, for yer guns and yer fedoras. Go back and read my response to you, darling, and try to actually respond to to the content within it. Btw, this is also why I have no interest in playing the rabbit hole games with Tasker or anyone else — I gave you a full response with supporting evidence, and even graciously pulled relevant quotes so you didn't need to trouble yourself with too much reading — and your responses ever since are just angrily misunderstanding what we were even discussing. We can't have any kind of honest discussion if you won't engage in the same reality. "Define store" was where you started with this, you silly boy.

Well, can't argue that. Ya got me. Blam! Semantics for the win. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you sure taught me a lesson. So you were posting The Onion article (which mocks how easy it is to purchase guns legally) in an attempt to mock my position (that 'easily legally purchased guns' is a problem with available solutions), but what you actually meant was... well, who knows what you meant. You'll probably claim that having no point is your point. Winning! Now that you've scored one, are you able to articulate your position on gun control? Or is it just memes, bumper stickers, "I didn't say that," and "it doesn't work"? Because that's all I've seen from you on it, yet you keep insinuating you have some substance somewhere beneath the mounds of bullsh*t...

That's right, LAz, because the world is only what you, yourself, can see. The "majority of Americans who agree with [gun control]" don't exist. They're a hoax, like climate change. Globalists! In fact, I'm not even real. I'm a figment of your imagination; we all are. I'm sent here by God above on a mission to communicate something very important, and only you can see this — only you know the truth, because you are the only one who exists. You have correctly identified that my son, Guns, are being unfairly crucified. I will now accept you into the Gates of Heaven. All you need to do now is take the communion. You know how. Well, I don't know, do I? You haven't clearly stated them and I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth. You appear to be opposing gun control of any kind, and have mentioned that they don't work, but you have also refused to plainly state your position, multiple times. You have instead been putting on a very dramatic show about how actually you're the victim here, because we're not thinking enough about you and your feelings. You've been quite clear that you are a one-of-a-kind independent snowflake with very unique and special opinions. So I wouldn't dare to speak for you. If you'd like to speak for yourself, don't let a little online rudeness stop you.

Well, Tom, I'm afraid it would have to just be me as "the majority of Americans" aren't aware of you & LAz's specific positions. I guess that's because the left only deals in archetypes instead of patting each of you on the head individually? What point do you think The Onion is making here, LAz? I know conservatives struggle with "jokes" but do you realize your position is the butt of the joke?