Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: There aren't mass shootings in the UK. We've had I think it's four in the past century, despite a near total lack of armed citizens to stop them.
You've had five in the past two weeks.
(Mass shooting defined as 3+ killed in one spree.)
I am advocating that shutting down the epidemiological research into gun violence was wrong. It should be continued in order to get clarity around the whole phenomenon so that the nation can consider what ought to be done from a position of knowledge.
An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.
A loud, dark, cramped nightclub filled with armed people shooting at whatever they think is going on does not strike me as a good situation.
Yeah, what if someone decides to shoot up a mall. He starts shooting. A concealed carrying person pulls out a pistol, starts shooting at the shooter. Another concealed carrying person notices the first CC shooting, so starts shooting at him, and so on. Also, any police at the area would shoot everyone holding a gun, killing those who try to help.
Aside from Vermont and Alaska every state requires a permit for concealed carry so every citizen that carries concealed has a state issued permit. The state keeps track of the permits. We know that the you can't get a concealed carry permit unless you have a clean criminal record. We know that there haven't been any documented cases of concealed carry permit holders going on shooting sprees. So in the aftermouth of a religious zealot going on a shooting spree in a gay club you want to clamp down on the one group of armed citizens that we know have clean criminal records and have historically been crime free after receiving their permits? That doesn't make any sense. You can invent whatever hypothetical situations you want but the fact remains that concealed carry permit holders have proven to be law abiding citizens both before and after they get their permits. You're inventing boogeymen to justify governmental restrictions that wouldn't have an impact on preventing the mass murders from happening or recurring.
whembly wrote: Problem is... you'll end up disarming a victim who may have been able to stop the bad guy.
The Pulse security guard was armed.
So?
So a lot of these "If someone had a gun, they could've stopped this tragedy!" arguments are actually bullgak.
An armed guard at the door was ambushed by a determined assailant with an AR15 there's not much you can do when you're outgunned and taken by complete surprise. Doesn't invalidate the fact that if there had been more armed people at pulse there would have a greater chance of the attacker getting put down sooner.
Except CC people don't stop mass shootings, look at the one in oregon a year back or so (kinda sad that we have had so many that we forget the dates). There were multiple CC people on campus and they didn't stop the guy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/16 19:53:34
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Leaked document shows the DNC wanted Clinton from start
A document leaked by a hacker who took responsibility for the Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed.
A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 – a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”
HRC stands for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The document, posted online by the hacker “Guccifer 2.0,” outlines ways to hit back at the GOP presidential field, such as “use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”
The author of the document is not listed. The DNC stayed officially neutral during the prolonged primary between Clinton and Sanders.
But some Sanders backers say the document shows what they’ve felt all along: the system was rigged in favor of Clinton.
“With proof that #Bernie never even had a chance, I shall double down and vote #BernieOrBust in Nov. @TheDemocrats,” tweeted a Sanders supporter from Chicago.
Sanders has declined to drop out of the Democratic primary race. Among his demands to Clinton and the Democratic National Committee: oust DNC leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz and get rid of super delegates.
“There are lots of valid reasons to question Schultz’s leadership, including how the DNC conducted itself during this last primary election season,” Sanders’ backer, Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP, told The Post. “However, what is just as concerning is how the party has performed in general under her leadership.”
The DNC confirmed the computer break-in earlier this week and blamed Russian government hackers.
A senior DNC official stands by the assessment despite Gussifer’s claim it was a “lone hacker.”
“We believe that today’s release and the claims around it may be a part of a disinformation campaign by the Russians,” the official said, declining to address the alleged collusion. “We’ve deployed the recommended technology so that today our systems are secure thanks to a swift response to that attack and we will continue to monitor our systems closely.”
Leaked document shows the DNC wanted Clinton from start
A document leaked by a hacker who took responsibility for the Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed.
A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 – a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”
HRC stands for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The document, posted online by the hacker “Guccifer 2.0,” outlines ways to hit back at the GOP presidential field, such as “use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”
The author of the document is not listed. The DNC stayed officially neutral during the prolonged primary between Clinton and Sanders.
But some Sanders backers say the document shows what they’ve felt all along: the system was rigged in favor of Clinton.
“With proof that #Bernie never even had a chance, I shall double down and vote #BernieOrBust in Nov. @TheDemocrats,” tweeted a Sanders supporter from Chicago.
Sanders has declined to drop out of the Democratic primary race. Among his demands to Clinton and the Democratic National Committee: oust DNC leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz and get rid of super delegates.
“There are lots of valid reasons to question Schultz’s leadership, including how the DNC conducted itself during this last primary election season,” Sanders’ backer, Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP, told The Post. “However, what is just as concerning is how the party has performed in general under her leadership.”
The DNC confirmed the computer break-in earlier this week and blamed Russian government hackers.
A senior DNC official stands by the assessment despite Gussifer’s claim it was a “lone hacker.”
“We believe that today’s release and the claims around it may be a part of a disinformation campaign by the Russians,” the official said, declining to address the alleged collusion. “We’ve deployed the recommended technology so that today our systems are secure thanks to a swift response to that attack and we will continue to monitor our systems closely.”
An election was rigged from the start?!? GASP! Shock and awe!
Side note, the fact that Sander's backer is named Ben Jealous, is just comedy gold.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/17 14:37:35
Surely it is hardly a shock the party would prefer Clinton who has been a stalwart member for decades and is ex-First Lady and so on, over Bernie who as I understand it actually is an independent who allies with the Democrats.
There's no implication of vote rigging, and the primaries seem to have been done on the correct procedure and Bernie is losing by a reasonable margin.
He can definitely get some compromises out of the Democrats but his room for manoeuvre is limited by the fact that if he runs independently it will split the anti-Trumpo vote and probably let him win, which would be a bad result for both Clinton and Sanders.
Leaked document shows the DNC wanted Clinton from start
A document leaked by a hacker who took responsibility for the Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed.
A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 – a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”
HRC stands for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The document, posted online by the hacker “Guccifer 2.0,” outlines ways to hit back at the GOP presidential field, such as “use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”
The author of the document is not listed. The DNC stayed officially neutral during the prolonged primary between Clinton and Sanders.
But some Sanders backers say the document shows what they’ve felt all along: the system was rigged in favor of Clinton.
“With proof that #Bernie never even had a chance, I shall double down and vote #BernieOrBust in Nov. @TheDemocrats,” tweeted a Sanders supporter from Chicago.
Sanders has declined to drop out of the Democratic primary race. Among his demands to Clinton and the Democratic National Committee: oust DNC leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz and get rid of super delegates.
“There are lots of valid reasons to question Schultz’s leadership, including how the DNC conducted itself during this last primary election season,” Sanders’ backer, Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP, told The Post. “However, what is just as concerning is how the party has performed in general under her leadership.”
The DNC confirmed the computer break-in earlier this week and blamed Russian government hackers.
A senior DNC official stands by the assessment despite Gussifer’s claim it was a “lone hacker.”
“We believe that today’s release and the claims around it may be a part of a disinformation campaign by the Russians,” the official said, declining to address the alleged collusion. “We’ve deployed the recommended technology so that today our systems are secure thanks to a swift response to that attack and we will continue to monitor our systems closely.”
HRC has been planning this campaign since the end of the 2008 campaign. It's been rather overt. It's not like nobody knew that Wasserman Schultz was a huge HRC supporter when she became DNC chair or that her support of HRC didn't play a big role in her becoming DNC chair.
It's the same in both parties. Everybody knew McCain was going to be the nominee in 2008 because he was runner up to Bush43. Everyone knew Romney would be the nominee in 2012 because he lost to McCain. It was their "turn" so they got the nomination. HRC lost to Obama in 2008 so now in 2016 it's her turn and she got the nomination.
Parties don't have to cheat or rig the primaries to get the outcomes they want. The Parties control the entire process, run the elections and everything. All it takes is a little bit of manipulation and favortism to make sure the right candidate gets the backing of the establishment and everyone falls into line. The media get the "leaks" that cast the right nominee in a favorable light and get negative leaks about the rest of the field. The various Party Committees make sure the establishment machinery pushes for the right candidate, makes sure they get the best endorsements and donors, etc. They don't have to rig the voting when they control all the options, the media access/narratives, the money, the political activity, etc..
Janthkin wrote: I think we got a preview of her likely approach in her "foreign policy" speech a little while ago - you don't have to do anything with Trump other than republish some of the things he's said, and make sure the voters know he said them.
I'm hoping some superPAC does nothing but cut together his own words into themed commercials: "Trump's greatest misogynist hits", "Trump's greatest racist hits", etc.
Now this is something...
(WSJ paywall article) U.S. State Department Officials Call for Strikes Against Syria’s Assad
BEIRUT—Dozens of State Department officials this week protested against U.S. policy in Syria, signing an internal document that calls for targeted military strikes against the Damascus government and urging regime change as the only way to defeat Islamic State.
The “dissent channel cable” was signed by 51 State Department officers involved with advising on Syria policy in various capacities, according to an official familiar with the document. The Wall Street Journal reviewed a copy of the cable, which repeatedly calls for “targeted military strikes” against the Syrian government in light of the near-collapse of the ceasefire brokered earlier this year.
The views expressed by the U.S. officials in the cable amount to a scalding internal critique of a longstanding U.S. policy against taking sides in the Syrian war, a policy that has survived even though the regime of President Bashar al-Assad has been repeatedly accused of violating ceasefire agreements and Russian-backed forces have attacked U.S.-trained rebels.
...
“It’s embarrassing for the administration to have so many rank-and-file members break on Syria,” said a former State Department official who worked on Middle East policy. . . The recent letter marked a move by the heart of the bureaucracy, which is largely apolitical, to break from the White House.
...
Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.
People spend a lot of time criticising Obama and Clinton for getting us involved in Libya and now they are to be criticised for not getting us involved in Syria.
skyth wrote: Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.
I like it!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
People spend a lot of time criticising Obama and Clinton for getting us involved in Libya and now they are to be criticised for not getting us involved in Syria.
Which is right?
Both can be right or wrong. Obama can be criticized for getting involved in Libya and not getting results that show any tangible benefits for our involvement. Is Libya more or less stable? Are there groups/forces in Libya that are now more or less friendly to the US? Are US interests in the region better or worse off than before? Are we more or less safe as a nation due to our involvement in Libya? What was the objective in getting involved in Libya? Was it accomplished? Was it worth it?
Is our lack of involvement in Syria making our national interests in the region better or worse off? Does our lack of involvment make us more or less safe as a nation? Is the region more or less hostile to US interests because of our lack of involvement? What is the objective of abstaining from getting involved? Are we meeting that objective? How do we evaluate if we're being successful at our objective and it's worth whatever cost is incurred in obtaining it?
The PotUS and SecState should be able to speak coherently and knowledgably on our foreign policy objectives, the status of those objectives and pros and cons of our efforts to achieve them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Apparently in response to the laws being passed to drug test lower income people, a congresswoman has introduced a bill to drug test anyone with over $150k in itemized deductions.
Nobody is required to be drug tested just because they are poor. Do you think the government should act to prevent people who receive government assistance from spending some of the money on recreational drug use? I personally take a Libertarian stance on the issue and feel that the govt should either give people money with no strings or not give people money but giving people money just to justify interferring with people's personal lives isn't the role govt should be playing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/17 15:48:52
People spend a lot of time criticising Obama and Clinton for getting us involved in Libya and now they are to be criticised for not getting us involved in Syria.
Which is right?
I'm a few thoughts on this...
1) US don't want another war... and Obama/Clinton really buys into that.
2) Having said that, it's a cop-out. The leadership need to make those hard decisions and make the case to the public.
3) Right now, there is no case (either way), which is frustrating.
4) To be fair: I don't want to engage Assad unilaterally. If we can't go big and curbstomp him... don't bother.
People spend a lot of time criticising Obama and Clinton for getting us involved in Libya and now they are to be criticised for not getting us involved in Syria.
Which is right?
I'm a few thoughts on this...
1) US don't want another war... and Obama/Clinton really buys into that.
2) Having said that, it's a cop-out. The leadership need to make those hard decisions and make the case to the public.
3) Right now, there is no case (either way), which is frustrating.
4) To be fair: I don't want to engage Assad unilaterally. If we can't go big and curbstomp him... don't bother.
Slow your roll there Whembly. If we went over there and curbstomped Assad into oblivion, what happens to Syria? Who takes over being in charge? Does it become a theocracy? Does it become more or less friendly to the US? Russia has a lot of ties to Syria, what we chose to do about Syria is going to have a direct impact with our relationship with Russia. I'm not a fan of Assad in any way but before we take him out we really need to have a plan for what comes next.
Leaked document shows the DNC wanted Clinton from start
A document leaked by a hacker who took responsibility for the Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed.
A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 – a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”
HRC stands for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The document, posted online by the hacker “Guccifer 2.0,” outlines ways to hit back at the GOP presidential field, such as “use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”
The author of the document is not listed. The DNC stayed officially neutral during the prolonged primary between Clinton and Sanders.
But some Sanders backers say the document shows what they’ve felt all along: the system was rigged in favor of Clinton.
“With proof that #Bernie never even had a chance, I shall double down and vote #BernieOrBust in Nov. @TheDemocrats,” tweeted a Sanders supporter from Chicago.
Sanders has declined to drop out of the Democratic primary race. Among his demands to Clinton and the Democratic National Committee: oust DNC leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz and get rid of super delegates.
“There are lots of valid reasons to question Schultz’s leadership, including how the DNC conducted itself during this last primary election season,” Sanders’ backer, Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP, told The Post. “However, what is just as concerning is how the party has performed in general under her leadership.”
The DNC confirmed the computer break-in earlier this week and blamed Russian government hackers.
A senior DNC official stands by the assessment despite Gussifer’s claim it was a “lone hacker.”
“We believe that today’s release and the claims around it may be a part of a disinformation campaign by the Russians,” the official said, declining to address the alleged collusion. “We’ve deployed the recommended technology so that today our systems are secure thanks to a swift response to that attack and we will continue to monitor our systems closely.”
swift response? their system was hacked for over a year.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
~1.5k
