LA Grant

Poojer, your frustration is well-founded — there is more bunk than ever right now. There is an open "war" on "information." What's happening is we're seeing "truth" or "facts" being misconstrued as "subjective." An apple is on the table. You say, this is an apple. They say, no, this is a banana. Don't believe what you hear about "apples" - who's telling you that? The apple tree? This is a banana. You say, an apple is an apple is an apple. They say, well that's just, like, your opinion, man. And I have a right to mine. That pointless kind of debate isn't good for anyone. It's not a philosophical exercise, though it's presented as one. It's a deliberate attempt to discredit inconvenient truths. If everything is relative, then nothing is anything. Right? It's nihilism, ultimately. My main recommendation is to not get your news primarily from TV, and to include The New York Times into your daily routine. I'm not saying to only read the Times, but to include it. As much as the Trump administration has sought to discredit "the failing New York Times" and I can understand why people would be reluctant to pay for subscriptions, when so many other sources are free online -- you get what you pay for. The NYT's record speaks for itself. I like subscribing anyway and reading a physical newspaper every morning. The Times recently started doing do a 30-minute podcast, every weekday, featuring an investigative report into an ongoing story. It's free here.

Repeat after NRA: They're coming to get you! They're coming to get you! And only you, Joe Gunowner, can stop them -- protect liberty™️ with these great products!

John Oliver isn't a "source." He is aggregating sources to tell the news story with comedy. The video is for your benefit as it presents the facts clearly and in plain language. Laws are man-made. They can be wrong, broken, impractical. They have been wrong, broken, impractical. Will you deny this?

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the definition of "Americans." Time to go back to square one, Azalin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans

Okay, sure. Let's look behind us at the legal processes. Can you talk about the legal process of immigration for 19th century Irish people? How about the legal immigration of 18th century African people? The legal immigration of late 16th century English, French, Spanish people? What should 21st century immigrants from Mexico or Syria learn from these previous integrations? Where do Americans come from?

If the Bills don't draft a QB after all this, the shadow of Billy Buffalo shall decree 17 more years before they see the playoffs again.

Interesting analysis of the article & the video. Thanks for your input. The board would suffer without your valuable contributions.

Who's "we"? These are all terrible ideas, especially #3, but all of them. Admittedly they would be more effective than a wall but that's not a high bar to clear. Here are 3 that would be more effective. 1) Provide a simpler path to citizenship 2) Stop ICE needlessly arresting farmers, busboys, blue collar workers, as though the flawed societal rules are their fault -- what good is this doing for anyone? 3) Ensure Immigration Courts work practically instead of being the partisan kangaroo courts they are now

ICE is an abomination. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-farmworkers-ice-20180316-htmlstory.html The disgusting state of Immigration Courts is explained well here from John Oliver who makes it as entertaining as possible given the subject.

It's not so much this specific message people are upset about, it is merely the clearest example. The core issue is that these are being presented to Local News viewers disingenuously. In the example, you can see, they are not reporting so much as actors reading a script. If the point of it was to to merely establish a mission statement for responsible journalism, why not be upfront that it's a sponsored message? Sinclair literally forces Local News affiliates to run certain stories & messages, and individual reporters are threatened with firing if they don't comply (see first post). These mandated stories & messages have been aligned with the White House's agenda — from the example video on "don't trust the media" to Deep State theories to being forced to air conservative op-eds from Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump advisor (examples are in the John Oliver video). Again, these are all presented on Local News as being organic segments on the program; the fact that it is mandated from Sinclair is hidden. That is why people are upset. Sinclair has direct ties to the White House. So if you would be concerned about "Orwellian state-controlled media propaganda," then Sinclair's actions should be concerning. Trump went to CNN for better coverage; was denied. Kushner and Sinclair make an agreement; both sides say totally normal, nothing different from any other network incentivizing a candidate for interviews. Then Trump ramps up his CNN fake news schtick around the time he strikes this "extended deal" with Sinclair, who were already known to be conservative-leaning and doing "must run" stories. So the message of Sinclair Local News affiliates doing the must run on "don't believe a lot of what you hear out there, but you can trust us, the reliable Local News" -- that sucks. We should expect better from presidents & journalists than gaslighting the public, this lame attempt at "don't believe anything you hear unless you hear it from me." It's ridiculous. The major obstacle to solving such a problem is the intense partisanship, as evidenced by most of the replies in this thread. This isn't even close to the same thing, B-Man. The Sinclair video shows actors reading a script, while pretending to still be your friendly Local News reporters. Your video shows CNN and MSNBC using the words "concerned" and "propaganda" talking about this story. Uhh, yeah? No sh*t? It is propaganda and it is concerning. The fact that you think this is somehow the same is exactly the partisan problem I'm referring to.

If I cared to look for it, I'd quote one of Tasker's posts where he's getting misty-eyed thinking how Trump shall one day be considered equal status with Washington.

Not making sense in order to defend the indefensible is Rhino's specialty.

As if we needed a millionth example of conservative brainwashing that conservatives themselves will ignore. But sure, keep prattling on about fake news and the liberal media. https://www.gq.com/story/sinclair-white-house-ties

Tell us again how you think "History will show Trump to be a great man, the right leader for the times. He will stand equal to George Washington."

You keep insisting I'm only attacking "strawmen." If you'd like more individualized attention, why don't you go ahead & lay out your position, and differentiate it from whatever you think the "strawman" is that I'm focused on? You'll chirp that I'm "intellectually dishonest" to shift the blame while your debate strategy is on clear display: deflection & hiding. If you think you're being misrepresented, Tasker, I encourage you: State your position clearly. You haven't done this yet. Just the same refrain of "I believe in Constitutional rights, 2A shall never be infringed, don't you get it???!" But when your Beckian bumper sticker logic is shown to be faulty and unreasonable, you deflect & hide until you can start the cycle from the top again. Do you have any idea for solution? Or just a pouty insist on "no no no"? Plainly: Are you unable to articulate your position? Calling it — you can't & you won't. So your solution to funding "improved suicide prevention programs" (which you brought up) is "magic fairy dust." You have no actual ideas, Tom, just weak rhetoric. "Mass gun confiscation" is a confused way of wording "universal background checks." I know you struggle with definitions — do you need help with differentiating these two?

Nice job missing the connection. The point sailed right above your head. Repeating it: If Zimmeran killing Trayvon Martin is justified — then would you support David Hogg if he used a gun instead of words against those who threatened him? "Lawfully murdered" is impossible, is it? How would you describe the police executing Philando Castile? How would you describe lynchings in the Jim Crow South?

Great insight from Leaf. I think he's right on with a lot of it, too. Also points out Buffalo as his first example of a desirable location for any of the top rookie QBs.

The first part: Why? The second part: Thank you. I don't think you will need to do that, honestly. But I appreciate it. In the meantime, maybe... um, something less dramatic would be a wonderful but equally heroic gesture. Like considering what Hogg is saying would be hella tight as hell, brah. An even cooler courtesy would be to recognize when people are being brave/foolish enough to speak against injustice. That would inherently mean speaking against the status quo. It's disappointing how society regularly misreads bravery in real time, and disgusting that the strategy is always always always to attack their inconvenient message by tar-&-feathering the individual messenger, from Jesus f***ing Christ to the countless examples since, up to & including Hogg. Yes. Hogg. Recognizing Hogg as a human capable of free will would be a start. He's not a robot A.I. programmable Home Alone character. He's an angry kid, maybe he has Asperger's, maybe a kind of post-traumatic shock clarity/euphoria — his style of speech, tone, motivations, articulation: who cares? It is not about one person, as much as the right keeps trying to do with Hogg and Gonzalez; there's so many more of the Parkland kids also making media rounds, and the Chicago group. They are mostly ignored by right-wing media, who prefer the "boogeyman" model of storytelling. Maybe he simply recognizes that he can overcome this tragedy by dedicating his life to fighting what caused it — Hogg almost has Batman's origin, for god's sake. It is possible Hogg is exactly what he appears to be, right? Who is Ida B. Wells and why would I bring her up?

Yeesh, I'm not putting words in your mouth, or, I'm not trying to— can you understand? I'm not saying you do think that. I'm asking for clarification that you don't think that. I'm saying it's not an "agree to disagree" thing — there is a core element here of "shut the f*** up, David Hogg" that is clear as day, yet there are many who will deny that fact by ignoring it and focusing elsewhere. Under the BS, it comes down to we either think it's okay for him to speak, or that it's not okay for him to speak for xyz reason. So you've clarified that you never said it was wrong for him to speak, but you do stop short of actually saying you support his right to speak. That alone is a way to consider thinking about it. Going after her advertisers to silence her — This is an example of free speech & the free market, is it not? He didn't initiate the conversation with Ingraham, he responded. Why is that not okay for him to do? For all of the perpetuation of the idea that Hogg is a puppet, paid actor (I don't think there's any clear view of him from the right other than "bad, go away, bad") — Hogg doesn't need advertisers, unlike Ingraham. He has this advantage over her, and understands social media better than she does. Ingraham is a political hack taking a trending topic and going with the most salacious, vulture-like approach to it. It takes some Olympic-level mental gymnastics to think that Ingraham is somehow the 'David' to David's 'Goliath' in this situation. "Hack talking sh!t," like Ingraham is doing, is best responded to by responding non-violently but effectively, which is what Hogg is doing. "Kid talking sh!t" was why Trayvon Martin was lawfully murdered by George Zimmerman, also in Florida. Would it be preferable if Hogg used a firearm, as Zimmerman did, to defend himself against verbal attacks & veiled threats? On the subject of advertisers & boycotts. What's your view on the ongoing situation with Delta & the NRA in Georgia? Or, on football — what did you think about efforts to boycott advertisers over the player protests? In that case, I think the reasoning & effort is much dumber, but the boycotters are entitled to do whatever they want, regardless of what I think.

Why doesn't the white community address white-on-white gun violence? 84% of white people killed by guns are murdered by... white people. Black people killed by other black people is similar, but a little higher at 90%. Since there are more white people than black people in America, why isn't "white on white gun violence" considered a bigger problem? Also. What's your opinion on Philando Castile? So, in this fantasy of being able to ask one question to this 17-year-old boy... you'd choose to ask him about masturbating? No wonder you were so upset about me saying Tasker supports NAMBLA. Good lord, how many posts from pedophiles have I been reading on PPP? B-Man, how is David Hogg a "bully"? Is he not allowed to defend himself from attacks? Or is defending yourself only acceptable if it involves a firearm?

Okay. To your opinion — okay, so even if we label him a "political opportunist," why is he wrong to express his opinion? Since he didn't organize the school shooting himself, it's not as though he engineered this. He happened to be interviewed by the media, as is common after any tragedy. We hear from the victims. In this case, the victims happened to want to speak out. It's not an agree/disagree thing — I understand your personal opinion that he's an "opportunist," and that Ingraham is fair to mock him on his public tweet talking about rejection letters. I'm asking: Why is it wrong for him to speak? Even just in this specific example: why is it okay for Ingraham, but not okay for Hogg?

Okay except that's an inaccurate misrepresentation of the NAMBLA slam, Koko. My posts are public, you can read them, I even explained the context. Here it is again, the idea goes like this: if you say 2A is absolute & immutable, then 1A is absolute & immutable. This means "arms" means more than "firearms." It also means "free speech" can't be overruled by Supreme Court, therefore, child pornography is legal nationally. Absolutist arguments are very stupid in many ways, but drawing this parallel is the clearest way to clown on contradictions. Generally, 2A arguments come from hardcore libertarian constitutionalist types in the Glenn Beck-iest version of it, like Tasker; or they come from ignorant folks who hear the refrain of "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" enough to assume that's the end of the discussion without fully considering it. 2A is just one of the common counters in absolute opposition to improving gun restrictions, but they are all contradictory, speculative, emotional, selfish. There is no evidence that you, private citizen, owning a firearm gives me liberty that I wouldn't have if you didn't own a gun. Every anti-gun-restriction argument ultimately boils down to "I don't want to be inconvenienced." Owning a gun does not give you liberty+. You just get a gun. 2A did not protect Philando Castile from being murdered by the government. It wouldn't have been better for him if he'd used the gun in defense, rather than stating calmly to the officer that he had a gun. Examples of police violence like this contradict the idea that an armed populace is better protected against the state. 2A did not prevent Japanese internment camps during WWII. It's interesting that you're more offended by me calling Tasker names, considering that (a) name-calling is a given here; Boyst regularly uses slurs and don't see you calling it out (b) "nobody cares about your feelings" is the status quo attitude here, (c) you're comfortable calling names — and last but not least, (d) that any of that is somehow more offensive to you & more worth your ire, than Nikolas Cruz legally buying an AR-15. There's so much blather about 2A in theory, but Nikolas Cruz having easy access to buying an AR-15 is an example of what the current legal interpretation of 2A does in practice. It makes guns really f***ng easy to get for any idiot who wants one. It would be a huge stretch to argue that's how the Founders intended for 2A to work. Private ownership of firearms isn't even the best way to combat an oppressive government, if it ever was. What would be more helpful in protecting rights and individual sovereignty against an over-reaching oppressive government would be more requirements for full transparency from all levels of government. Simpler voter registration laws. Abolition of gerrymandering & abolition of the electoral college. Fair representation. All votes from all legal citizens should count equally. Streamlined process of proposing bills, and more direct voter input on potential laws. Things like this would absolutely help guarantee more liberty & freedoms to individual people, by improving the "democracy" in our "representative democracy" machinery. I'm not advocating for "repeal & replace" for 2A, but if I were, I'd argue that the spirit of 2A is more about protecting individual rights against government overreach, than it is about owning firearms; as such, there should be clarification on ways like the ones I outlined that would provide the individual more concessions from the gov't. If we agreed that 2A is about protecting the individual from government overreach, that should be justification to protect Snowden. "The right to bear arms" — arms does not exclusively mean firearms. If it did, it would be "firearms." An "arm" is a weapon; in Snowden's case, you could make the argument that he was using information as a weapon against government overreach, and his whistleblowing should be protected under 2A. It's not like I'm inventing this line of thinking. I'm just the one of only a few representing that viewpoint here, for whatever reason. Probably because, like Coach Tuesday indicated, most TSW people generally don't want to have to deal with the kind of malignant idiocy that runs rampant on PPP. Who can blame them? Bottom line: Clowning on Tasker for being an idiot SHOULDN'T be more offensive to you than the overall problem of mass shootings due to unconsciously loose gun laws that quite specifically benefit the deranged, like Nikolas Cruz. This problem is, has been, continues to be since Parkland, is a much bigger one than being limited to this specific bad actor. The current gun laws do not make practical sense. They ought to be changed. Most popular/agreed-upon "common sense solution" is national universal background checks. Phew. That's a lot of typing, but I'm having to explain a bunch of sh*t and then also introduce the ideas to make it clear; of course, doing so also means I'm being too long or pedantic. If I'm not criticized for one, then it's the other. It's similar tactics as applied to Hogg, or Kaep, for that matter. Again, goes back to — anytime the right hears a message they dislike, they deflect the message, ignore it, and work to discredit the messenger. The second coming of Jesus Christ would be thoroughly attacked by today's rightwing media. "Yeah I'm gonna listen to this delusional idiot? Get a job, hippie." "Pfft, water into wine? Parlor trick. Fake news." "I heard he sleeps with prostitutes yet he talks about the laws of God? He's not just an asshat, he's a criminal"

To the bolded — you didn't ask a question, ding-dong. Your previous "question" earned itself a satisfactory reply. If you're not satisfied, you can get your money back. To me being bitter sad sack of **** — hmm, i wouldn't disagree. we are all wretched, we are all Bills fans. To me being dishonest — so am I dumb or dishonest or sad or all of the above or what? What's interesting is I am being made out to be this lightning rod, and no matter what subject I am trying to get you to focus on, it's always just personal, personal, personal, attack, attack, attack. So, I give it right back. I've been consistently clear about this, the entire time, multiple posts, probably even to you weeks ago. If I were Rhino, I'd go into a bit about being offended that you haven't read all of my posts then claim I print out the entire board every night and adds it to a leather-bound hardcover. To you being smart and highly intelligent — Look I'm not going to diss your smarts again, because though I'm happy to hit back, I'm not a bully. What one could say here is that I am actually being bullied by bullies who think I'm bullying them, lol. I've heard that before from conservatives, too, that the Parkland kids are 'bullying' lawful gun owners. I think they're getting 'bullied' confused with 'feeling shame.' To your credit — I will say you are interesting in your contradictions. You show curiosity from time to time, occasional self-awareness & reflection, the rare instance of reasonableness. On the other hand, you're easily the foulest poster on PPP and most likely to use slurs. Could give a whole list of superlatives but I think you kinda just like the attention in a masochistic way. Build a better Boyst — less slurs, more curious. Sigh. I give you the benefit of the doubt, and then you sh*t all over the floor in the next moment. There's around a half-dozen unforced errors in your three sentence post, so it's kinda astounding to describe my post as "3rd grade level." You're something else, Boyst.

Two-part response. The shorter of the two is — You were mentioning fair criticism coming from the media. Wondering if the majority of critical media on Hogg has been fair or unfair? The longer one: Hogg is not running for office. He is a kid with an opinion. People are listening to his opinion because he survived a mass shooting at his school where his friends and classmates were murdered by a clearly mentally ill 18-year-old legally bought his weapon, an AR-15, without hassle. His opinion is that purchase should not have been possible. I agree with him. The majority of Americans, including lawful gun owners, support tighter restrictions, particularly universal background checks implemented nationally. Local restrictions are half-measures; a high percentage of gun violence in Chicago come from weapons purchased legally in Indiana. Hogg isn't as focused on the failures of the local sheriff/FBI because that is not the core issue — because Parkland isn't unique. There are an unacceptable rate of mass shootings & school shootings, particularly since the 2008 Heller decision. Solving this is going to require changing something; despite many attempts, ignoring it hasn't worked. Improving mental health services would be wonderful, but how would this not necessitate higher taxes? The left is obviously onboard with better nationalized healthcare, and now the right controls the entire government. So what's the hold up here? Furthermore, I don't understand this overall insistence, only from the right, that Hogg must hold opinions on every subject (tangential but relevant: on a separate board, someone was arguing that Hogg had a filthy mouth and why isn't he focused on the unborn fetuses murdered every year? "because he wasn't the victim of a mass abortion, genius") — while at the same time, criticize him for being too public. The right has been floating various contradictory ideas — is he a liar? is he a puppet? is he an actor? is he an opportunist? — with the unifying thread being it's aimed to discredit. Even if it means going to slander, libel, name-calling. A photoshopped meme of Emma Gonzalez tearing up the Constitution makes the rounds because there are plenty among the right who will share fake crap without a second thought if it aligns with their perception. All the while, the right appears to be absolutely unwilling to even consider the Parkland kids at face value: why can't Hogg simply be an angry teenager with an interest in debate/journalism/politics? Maybe he's got some mild Asperger's, but he's not some major mystery — I remember kids in HS being like Hogg. Their dads weren't in the FBI but some were in law enforcement and military background. That tends to make the kids interested in politics/history, because dad is. It really is not hard to understand Hogg or the Parkland kids if you just put yourself in their shoes and ask what you might do, if you were 16 or 17, and this happened in your school? Keeping in mind that it is in Florida, where a lot of the worst gun violence has occurred: Orlando was last year, Trayvon Martin a few years ago... and too many others. So, this is both shocking and not surprising. Keeping in mind that teenagers in 2018 are far more comfortable on camera than older generations can fully comprehend, I think, and the older one is, the more difficult it might be to relate to the level of intuitiveness kids have with media and publicness. tl;dr There are far more examples of unfair criticism of Hogg than fair criticism — on this board, and in right-leaning media. There appears to be almost no effort, on this board and in right-leaning media, to consider what Hogg & the Parkland kids & the Chicago kids & March For Our Lives are saying in good faith. I'm wondering if you agree/disagree with that statement?

Sorry I think I am not being clear — I understand the point about Ingraham. It's tacky of her to do a story about it, but yeah, he did tweet about the rejection letters, so sure. He's also free to say "f*** you" back at her and pressure advertisers to drop her. That's free speech. That's free market. It goes both ways. I'm more interested in the suggestion that there exists "fair criticism" of Hogg, particularly, many examples of it. We can say Ingraham is fair criticism. It's a distraction tactic, like, whatever he does for college isn't related to anything he's saying about guns, but as a "scoop" on a "celebrity"? It's not libel or slander, so we can have that be the bar for "fair." What I'm wondering is: do you agree that the majority of criticism of Hogg, on this board & throughout the right, has been unfair? If you think the majority has been fair, what's your reasoning for libel, slander, name-calling being acceptable for public discourse?