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: Apart from machine-guns, I don't really see any difference between a "civilian" gun and a military gun as a weapon of war.
Most pistols and rifles have very similar military and "civilian" versions. I assume that the civilian version of a rifle doesn't have a bayonet lug and can't fire in full auto.
Which is kind of the point really, isn't it? People getting scared over the look of a weapon rather than its functionality. Depending on where you are bayonet lugs can be legal on civilian rifles. I have one on one of my guns. I only bought the bayonet for gaks and giggles though. Honestly, I've never really understood the urge to ban bayonet lugs. It's not like there are drive-by bayonettings. I think there have only been a couple killings with a mounted bayonet within the last 100 years so it's not exactly a major public health issue.
I always thought that law was pretty stupid, since if someone gets the urge to commit mayhem with a rifle, they'll be shooting the thing rather than running around bayoneting people.
As an American you probably are unfamiliar with Pvt Jones of Dad's Army so you will not know that, "They don't like it up 'em!"
jasper76 wrote: Unless, if by some mental gymnastics, you can construe the belief that life begins at conception as being somehow an offensive position to take. Or, if by some some mental gymnastics, you can construe the effort to protect lives in utero as somehow intending to hurt people that are different.
It isn't that hard to find the hypocrisy in the pro-life movement. Just ask any of them how much they've looked in to alternate means of reducing abortion. Ask them if they read about the incredible impact that free IUD programs have for at risk women, and if on learning it can lead to a drop in abortions of up to 80% if they support such programs.
Almost every time you will get blank looks, because the idea of actually doing stuff to reduce abortion just hasn't occurred to them. Because it isn't actually about the foetus. It's about the crusade.
There are hypocrites everywhere. That doesn't mean that life doesn't begin at conception, or that killing that life is a good thing.
As for hypocrisy, it's there to be had in the pro-choice movement as well. Many pro-choice people simulatanetously believe that killing innocent humans in utero for convenience is acceptable, but killing murderers and rapists to protect society is unacceptable.
You can find hypocrites everywhere you look.
You are making four assumptions to support your point.
1. That conception is an event.
2. That foetuses are innocent humans.
3. That killing murderers and rapists is protective of society.
4. That 2 and 3 are equivalent.
If any of these are not correct, your point is invalid.
I'm not commenting on the Daily Show interviews where they just ask somebody at an event to comment on camera. I'm referring to the instances where the Daily Show will do long form interviews with people that may be hours long and then edit them down to a segment that's only about 5 minutes long. Multiple people who have done such an interview with the daily show have complained that the editing of the long interview into a short segment was done in a way that misrepresented what they said, why they said it and the context in which it was said. That's the exact same thing that Couric and OKeefe and others do.
How about this? Just comedy or unethical hit piece?
It's unethical to edit interviews to deliberately misrepresent what people said. I stand by that opinion regardless of the context. Being disingenuous is being disingenuous.
I'm not accusing the Daily Show of doing a crime or something truly heinous, I'm just pointing out that when they selectively edit interviews it's poor form just like it's poor form when anyone else does it. That doesn't make the Daily Show evil it just means that they have the same unethical behaviors of others. The Daily Show can still be entertaining (even without Stewart?) it was even entertaining when Robin Williams made the movie about it, and still have disingenuous segments.
There really aren't enough long form interview shows on tv. There are a ton of great popular podcasts that do long interviews but TV still does their audience a disservice by breaking everything down into tiny crosstalking segments of soundbites.
Listen. The point of the Daily Show as I understand it (I have never seen it) is that their interviewees know they are going to cut and splice the footage to create a comedy skit, because that is what the show does.
This is entirely different to recording an interview as a serious journalist and chopping it up to misrepresent the person being interviewed as a political news item.
It isn't poor form, or unethical. It's a straight up deal of comedy.
If you can't understand the difference, please ask for more help and people will be happy to try and create different analogies or something to help explain it to you in a simpler, more accessible way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: I think Laura Kuenssberg must have really bruised his ego during the May/Trump press conference for him to be that angry at the BBC.
I'm kinda amazed at him going after the Daily Mail though, would have thought only the Daily Express would be been better buddies with him.
Perhaps Laura Kuenssberg will sue Trump for $150 million on the ground that his impuning her professional standing and reputation has cost her a once in a lifetime opportunity to profit from the unique position she found herself in.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/25 00:32:26
jasper76 wrote: Unless, if by some mental gymnastics, you can construe the belief that life begins at conception as being somehow an offensive position to take. Or, if by some some mental gymnastics, you can construe the effort to protect lives in utero as somehow intending to hurt people that are different.
It isn't that hard to find the hypocrisy in the pro-life movement. Just ask any of them how much they've looked in to alternate means of reducing abortion. Ask them if they read about the incredible impact that free IUD programs have for at risk women, and if on learning it can lead to a drop in abortions of up to 80% if they support such programs.
Almost every time you will get blank looks, because the idea of actually doing stuff to reduce abortion just hasn't occurred to them. Because it isn't actually about the foetus. It's about the crusade.
There are hypocrites everywhere. That doesn't mean that life doesn't begin at conception, or that killing that life is a good thing.
As for hypocrisy, it's there to be had in the pro-choice movement as well. Many pro-choice people simulatanetously believe that killing innocent humans in utero for convenience is acceptable, but killing murderers and rapists to protect society is unacceptable.
You can find hypocrites everywhere you look.
You are making four assumptions to support your point.
1. That conception is an event.
2. That foetuses are innocent humans.
3. That killing murderers and rapists is protective of society.
4. That 2 and 3 are equivalent.
If any of these are not correct, your point is invalid.
I don't agree with #3.
But, you lost me at #4 and the 'If any of these are not correct, your point is invalid.'
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/25 03:08:13
NinthMusketeer wrote: Obama kicks out one network and Whembly is outraged. Trump kicks out half a dozen and Whembly is 'meh'.
If any of you are surprised by this, I have to wonder where the feth you guys have been for the last half a dozen years. This is literally the most predictable and unsurprising thing ever.
Go team!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/25 00:47:47
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
NinthMusketeer wrote: Obama kicks out one network and Whembly is outraged. Trump kicks out half a dozen and Whembly is 'meh'.
If any of you are surprised by this, I have to wonder where the feth you guys have been for the last half a dozen years. This is literally the most predictable and unsurprising thing ever.
Go team!
....and I'm not surprise by ya'lls reactions.
Spoiler:
EDIT: playful tweak to another's aficionado for gifs...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/25 00:58:52
Prestor Jon wrote: Dakka is a message board that's mostly about tabletop gaming and none of us on here have any responsibility to have journalistic integrity or any such thing but if a poster consistently quoted other posters and changed the words they posted people would get upset, complain about it and the offending poster would be told to stop or face disciplinary actions against their account, because deliberately misrepresenting what people say/write is a gakky thing to do regardless of the context.
Even if the change are made clear, modifying someone's words in a quote text can definitely lead to a ban. I know.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also watching the US devolve into a freaking dictatorship is terrifying but also entertaining. How long 'till Trump place more restriction on the media? Will he name his new official Press agency Press TV, the Pravda, or Breitbart?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/25 01:28:37
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Prestor Jon wrote: Dakka is a message board that's mostly about tabletop gaming and none of us on here have any responsibility to have journalistic integrity or any such thing but if a poster consistently quoted other posters and changed the words they posted people would get upset, complain about it and the offending poster would be told to stop or face disciplinary actions against their account, because deliberately misrepresenting what people say/write is a gakky thing to do regardless of the context.
Even if the change are made clear, modifying someone's words in a quote text can definitely lead to a ban. I know.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also watching the US devolve into a freaking dictatorship is terrifying but also entertaining. How long 'till Trump place more restriction on the media? Will he name his new official Press agency Press TV, the Pravda, or Breitbart?
Trump moving to dictatorship?!?!?!
You funny....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/25 01:39:06
I'm not commenting on the Daily Show interviews where they just ask somebody at an event to comment on camera. I'm referring to the instances where the Daily Show will do long form interviews with people that may be hours long and then edit them down to a segment that's only about 5 minutes long. Multiple people who have done such an interview with the daily show have complained that the editing of the long interview into a short segment was done in a way that misrepresented what they said, why they said it and the context in which it was said. That's the exact same thing that Couric and OKeefe and others do.
How about this? Just comedy or unethical hit piece?
It's unethical to edit interviews to deliberately misrepresent what people said. I stand by that opinion regardless of the context. Being disingenuous is being disingenuous.
I'm not accusing the Daily Show of doing a crime or something truly heinous, I'm just pointing out that when they selectively edit interviews it's poor form just like it's poor form when anyone else does it. That doesn't make the Daily Show evil it just means that they have the same unethical behaviors of others. The Daily Show can still be entertaining (even without Stewart?) it was even entertaining when Robin Williams made the movie about it, and still have disingenuous segments.
There really aren't enough long form interview shows on tv. There are a ton of great popular podcasts that do long interviews but TV still does their audience a disservice by breaking everything down into tiny crosstalking segments of soundbites.
Listen. The point of the Daily Show as I understand it (I have never seen it) is that their interviewees know they are going to cut and splice the footage to create a comedy skit, because that is what the show does.
This is entirely different to recording an interview as a serious journalist and chopping it up to misrepresent the person being interviewed as a political news item.
It isn't poor form, or unethical. It's a straight up deal of comedy.
If you can't understand the difference, please ask for more help and people will be happy to try and create different analogies or something to help explain it to you in a simpler, more accessible way.
I'm familiar with the Daily Show I can even remember when Craig Kilborn hosted it.
I made the claim that it was wrong for entities including the Daily Show to selectively edit interviews for the purpose of misrepresenting the statements of the interviewee. First I was told that the Daily Show doesn't do that and asked to provide examples. I found multiple Daily Show interview subjects who complained of it happening to them. Then I was told that it's not wrong for the Daily Show to deliberately misrepresent people because they do it in the name of comedy and if interview subjects don't like it then shame on them for not expecting it when they agreed to talk to the Daily Show. I'm evaluating the process not the outcome. Just because the outcome is a funny segment or at least a segment that's supposed to be funny doesn't mean that deliberately misrepresenting a person's statements isn't disingenuous and unethical. You don't have to agree with me I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me and I don't care if anyone does I'm just defending my position when others choose to dispute it.
I'm not sure what funny about a President making horrible moves against any press that is critical of himself, except the part about how it allows me to feel immensely superior to the average US voter, which is a great feeling!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/25 01:49:28
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
BigWaaagh wrote: Meanwhile the path to authoritarianism continues from this administration. This is a direct assault on one of this country's fundamental values. The outrage should be coming from every side over gak like this. Start stifling the freedom of the press and begin manipulating the flow of information and it's not even a "slippery slope" anymore, it's worse on a potentially frightening level! Suddenly all those Trump "alarmists" out there aren't looking so hyperbolic in their chorus.
The New York Times, The Hill, Politico, BuzzFeed, the Daily Mail, BBC, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Daily News were among the other news organizations not permitted to attend. Unfethingbelievable!
This is bad. Every administration tries to control the narrative and get their message out through favorable media outlets but this kind of behavior goes far beyond that. In the short term I don't think the public really lost out on anything in this particular briefing but it's not good for this kind of hard line stance to be taken this early. It was wrong when the Obama administration banned Fox News but at least there was a lengthy build up to it and a show of solidarity against it. If this is a one time thing then the damage is just the Trump administration looking bad/worse. If this is just the beginning of 4 years of media restrictions and avoidance of media scrutiny then it's really bad. This could be the kind of precedent that sets a new normal that leads to future administrations being reclusive and playing favorites to an equal or greater extent.
jasper76 wrote: Unless, if by some mental gymnastics, you can construe the belief that life begins at conception as being somehow an offensive position to take. Or, if by some some mental gymnastics, you can construe the effort to protect lives in utero as somehow intending to hurt people that are different.
It isn't that hard to find the hypocrisy in the pro-life movement. Just ask any of them how much they've looked in to alternate means of reducing abortion. Ask them if they read about the incredible impact that free IUD programs have for at risk women, and if on learning it can lead to a drop in abortions of up to 80% if they support such programs.
Almost every time you will get blank looks, because the idea of actually doing stuff to reduce abortion just hasn't occurred to them. Because it isn't actually about the foetus. It's about the crusade.
There are hypocrites everywhere. That doesn't mean that life doesn't begin at conception, or that killing that life is a good thing.
As for hypocrisy, it's there to be had in the pro-choice movement as well. Many pro-choice people simulatanetously believe that killing innocent humans in utero for convenience is acceptable, but killing murderers and rapists to protect society is unacceptable.
You can find hypocrites everywhere you look.
You are making four assumptions to support your point.
1. That conception is an event.
2. That foetuses are innocent humans.
3. That killing murderers and rapists is protective of society.
4. That 2 and 3 are equivalent.
If any of these are not correct, your point is invalid.
I don't agree with #3.
But, you lost me at #4 and the 'If any of these are not correct, your point is invalid.'
@ Whembly, I think your quote got messed up since I didn't say that.
@Killkrazy, I watched Dad's Army religiously, along with, Are You Being Served and, Keeping Up Appearances. Loved those shows! I think we found something we agree on.
Trump signs another executive order in push to slash regulations
President Donald Trump on Friday signed another executive order as part of what he calls a broad push to curb regulations and help businesses.
The measure directs federal agencies to create "regulatory reform" task forces which will evaluate federal rules and recommend whether to keep, repeal or change them. Trump's administration wants the officials to reduce what it deems expensive or unnecessary rules.
Surrounded by business executives in the White House before he signed the order, Trump claimed "excessive regulation is killing jobs" and "driving companies out of our country like never before." He said the measure is "one of the many ways that we're going to get real results" in scaling back regulations.
Pledges to roll back regulations and slash taxes for individuals and corporations have helped to drive investor and business executive optimism. Trump also claims his policies will drive job growth, particularly in the Rust Belt regions that sealed his electoral win. He already signed one measure expanding regulatory review, with the goal of revoking two regulations for every new one put forward.
The executives who stood with Trump in the White House advise him on policy and met with him Thursday.
Earlier Friday, Trump pledged to chop 75 percent of regulations.
"We're going to put the regulation industry out of work and out of business. And by the way, I want regulation. I want to protect our environment. I want regulations for safety," Trump told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland. "I want all of the regulations that we need and I want them to be so strong and so tough. But we don't need 75 percent of the repetitive, horrible regulations that hurt companies, hurt jobs."
Last month, Trump told a group of business executives that he wanted to cut regulations by 75 percent or "maybe more." He did not explain how he came to that number.
Though Trump claims he will still protect the environment while slashing regulations, environmental groups and Democrats have slammed his actions so far.
Trump already has signaled that the federal government will reduce its role in the oil and gas industry by clearing the way for the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. He also signed into law a measure nullifying the Obama administration's Stream Protection Rule, which was aimed to stop coal companies from putting waste near waterways.
Don't see how he's going to able to reduce regulation 'by 75%'... but, any excise of over-regulations can be a good thing.
Trump signs another executive order in push to slash regulations
President Donald Trump on Friday signed another executive order as part of what he calls a broad push to curb regulations and help businesses.
The measure directs federal agencies to create "regulatory reform" task forces which will evaluate federal rules and recommend whether to keep, repeal or change them. Trump's administration wants the officials to reduce what it deems expensive or unnecessary rules.
Surrounded by business executives in the White House before he signed the order, Trump claimed "excessive regulation is killing jobs" and "driving companies out of our country like never before." He said the measure is "one of the many ways that we're going to get real results" in scaling back regulations.
Pledges to roll back regulations and slash taxes for individuals and corporations have helped to drive investor and business executive optimism. Trump also claims his policies will drive job growth, particularly in the Rust Belt regions that sealed his electoral win. He already signed one measure expanding regulatory review, with the goal of revoking two regulations for every new one put forward.
The executives who stood with Trump in the White House advise him on policy and met with him Thursday.
Earlier Friday, Trump pledged to chop 75 percent of regulations.
"We're going to put the regulation industry out of work and out of business. And by the way, I want regulation. I want to protect our environment. I want regulations for safety," Trump told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland. "I want all of the regulations that we need and I want them to be so strong and so tough. But we don't need 75 percent of the repetitive, horrible regulations that hurt companies, hurt jobs."
Last month, Trump told a group of business executives that he wanted to cut regulations by 75 percent or "maybe more." He did not explain how he came to that number.
Though Trump claims he will still protect the environment while slashing regulations, environmental groups and Democrats have slammed his actions so far.
Trump already has signaled that the federal government will reduce its role in the oil and gas industry by clearing the way for the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. He also signed into law a measure nullifying the Obama administration's Stream Protection Rule, which was aimed to stop coal companies from putting waste near waterways.
Don't see how he's going to able to reduce regulation 'by 75%'... but, any excise of over-regulations can be a good thing.
"Overregulation"
Don't make me laugh. Our regulatory system can barely stop massive pollution and environmental destruction as it is, and the EPA has been made toothless by Republican efforts to place profits over people.
And this order is ridiculous. If they have issues with particular regulations, then deal with those. But they never seem to have specifics, just the magical word "over-regulation". Unless the think making it so companies have to depose of their waste safely and not pollute our environment it too much of a burden for these multi-million doller companies to bear.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
The problem isn't so much that there are too many or too little regulations, but that the ones we have are so inefficient as a whole. We have a system that has had two odd centuries of being patched, added to, and modified. It's analogous to the 40k ruebook at this point and desperately needs an '8th edition' so to speak. But you can't just make a new edition of laws.
Having teams evaluate and recommend if regulations should be cut, modified, or kept is a good idea in my book. The execution of that... well we'll see.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm not much of a protester but if I lived on that side of the country I'd be making a sign & plans to go to Washington right now. This seriously crosses a line.
Also, slight chuckle at Whembly not being upset. If Obama did this the rage would have been epic, but his side POTUS does it and 'meh'.
Yup. How do you like the same gak shoved in your craw now?
This times it's a bit worst as it not really ideological opposition(like what Obama admin did)... but done to assuage Trumpo's fee fees.
Without any other information, you can only conclude that this is *why* it's happening.
That's a despicable retort. You should be absolutely ashamed.
What? Weren't you outraged when Fox News was kicked off for a bit? That administration revoked their press credentials?
That it took the rest of the media walking out to get them back in?
Obama kicks out one network and Whembly is outraged. Trump kicks out half a dozen and Whembly is 'meh'.
Yeah, Fox News being 'banned' was completely fabricated, but Fox certainly weren't going to pass up a chance to rile up the base 'about mean ol' Obama!
US citizen held and threatened to be deported as an illegal even though he showed his birth certificate and ID. Doubt this would have happened if he wasn't brown...
Muhammad Ali Jr detained for being named 'Muhammad.'
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/25 07:04:05
"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..." Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe.
"
Nils Bildt sent a short e-mail to DN late earlier on Friday, explaining why he was given the title of ”Swedish defense and national security advisor”: ”I appeared on Bill O'Reillys's show on Fox News. The title was chosen by Fox News's editor – I had no personal control over what title they chose. I am an independent analyst based in the USA”, he wrote.
Johan Wiktorin, a former defense analyst at the Military Intelligence and Security Service, MUST, says that he has never heard of Nils Bildt. ”He is unknown in Sweden as an expert on national security. The depiction of Sweden as a problem country in American media is a disturbing trend.”"
so seeing as Fox have just lied they'll be barred from the press briefings right ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
whembly wrote: Careful... you may jinx your election and Le Pen may be your next President. \
Yeah, I know. Still a superior choice over Trump, though . And that's not praise of LePen.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Muhammad Ali Jr detained for being named 'Muhammad.'
But surely, SURELY I SAY, anyone who thinkgs that Trumps policies would result in discrimination against American citizens just wants the terrorists to win.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/25 18:53:21
I love how Trump demands that all news must now cite it's sources by name or stay silent to prove they aren't "fake" or "leaks", but he himself has claimed to get knowledge from "Some very credible sources".
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
Trump will be the first presidential miss since Reagan was shot in 1981...
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.
Of course he isn't going. The whole thing is a roast and Trump is incapable of accepting any criticism, even the funny and pointed kind that you're supposed to laugh at (though this has been true of the last three Republican administrations to some degree).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/26 12:15:04
3000
4000 
My bad... I fixed it.
