What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread (5 Viewers)

parasaurolophus said:
You can shoot MACHINE GUNS!!!!!! in vegas. Well at least thats what the billboard on the side of the MV's driving around say.
Click to expand...
For a bachelor party I went to a range outside Austin where we rented several types of automatic weapons. The safety officer kept yelling "FUUULLL FREEDOM!"

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I think this is a good opportunity for those of you that are part of gun culture to teach those of us that aren't.  Do Crenshaw's points seem valid to you?  How often would a friend lend a gun to another friend that does not have guns of his own and therefore had never been through a background check?  It feels like a stretch to me but as noted above, I don't know anything about guns.
Click to expand...
Occasionally in my life I was at a friends place when they decided they wanted to go shooting, usually trap, and they would lend me a gun so we did not have to waste time going back to my home to get one for me.   I have also tried out friends, and even strangers handguns at ranges, and have lent mine out very quickly so that others could do the same.  I have never lent a gun out that would be out of my sight.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Occasionally in my life I was at a friends place when they decided they wanted to go shooting, usually trap, and they would lend me a gun so we did not have to waste time going back to my home to get one for me.   I have also tried out friends, and even strangers handguns at ranges, and have lent mine out very quickly so that others could do the same.  I have never lent a gun out that would be out of my sight.
Click to expand...
Do we know whether the background checks that Crenshaw is criticizing would prohibit you from doing this?  

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Do we know whether the background checks that Crenshaw is criticizing would prohibit you from doing this?  
Click to expand...
OK, I did a little digging and it feels like @jonessed's hypothetical is specifically excluded from the law.  

The text of the law keeps it legal to do a "temporary transfer" to somebody you're at the shooting range or hunting with:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text 

“(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively—

“(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;

“(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor—

“(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and

“(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing; or

“(iii) while in the presence of the transferor.
Click to expand...
So Crenshaw appears to be talking about a situation where a gun owner lends someone a gun to use outside the presence of the gun owner.  

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
OK, I did a little digging and it feels like @jonessed's hypothetical is specifically excluded from the law.  

The text of the law keeps it legal to do a "temporary transfer" to somebody you're at the shooting range or hunting with:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text 

So Crenshaw appears to be talking about a situation where a gun owner lends someone a gun to use outside the presence of the gun owner.  
Click to expand...
Thanks for doing the legwork on this.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
OK, I did a little digging and it feels like @jonessed's hypothetical is specifically excluded from the law.  

The text of the law keeps it legal to do a "temporary transfer" to somebody you're at the shooting range or hunting with:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text 

So Crenshaw appears to be talking about a situation where a gun owner lends someone a gun to use outside the presence of the gun owner.  
Click to expand...
If I am reading that bill correctly doesn't it basically eliminate all private sales of guns? 

Basically requires you to sell it to a third party first and then the third party can sell it? 

 
parasaurolophus said:
If I am reading that bill correctly doesn't it basically eliminate all private sales of guns? 

Basically requires you to sell it to a third party first and then the third party can sell it? 
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe this is correct with respect to sales.  You can still loan or gift a firearm to a family member but you can't sell or give it to anyone else other than a licensed dealer.

 
jon_mx said:
If you own property in Miami you better sell because apparently in a couple years Miami will cease to exist.   This is serious! 

AOC: Miami Will Not Exist ‘In a Few Years’ Without Green New Deal
Click to expand...
You know there really was some news about AOC tonight, of a particularly offensive nature . I’m not surprised you chose to ignore it, though: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/3kxaby/republican-attack-ad-burns-aoc-and-compares-her-to-the-khmer-rouge

 
parasaurolophus said:
If I am reading that bill correctly doesn't it basically eliminate all private sales of guns? 

Basically requires you to sell it to a third party first and then the third party can sell it? 
Click to expand...
That provision would just make intrastate purchases the same as interstate purchases. 

I bought a gun from someone in Kansas this past year and had to transfer through a third party licensed dealer. Cost me $30 I think 

 
It's always hard to tell what the outrage is over in terms of climate change.  Is it because she said "in a few years" or because she mentioned the term climate change at all and people are pissed that she's pushing the deep state conspiracy of climate change?  If it's the former, well.....nevermind.  If it's the latter forget the term climate change.  Portions of Miami flood daily and it's costing millions.  Something needs to be done about that flooding.  Miami and the state clearly agree that it's a significant problem or they wouldn't be looking to dump millions of dollars into fixing it.  Focus on that and ignore the silly political debate over why it's flooding.

 
The Commish said:
It's always hard to tell what the outrage is over in terms of climate change.  Is it because she said "in a few years" or because she mentioned the term climate change at all and people are pissed that she's pushing the deep state conspiracy of climate change?  If it's the former, well.....nevermind.  If it's the latter forget the term climate change.  Portions of Miami flood daily and it's costing millions.  Something needs to be done about that flooding.  Miami and the state clearly agree that it's a significant problem or they wouldn't be looking to dump millions of dollars into fixing it.  Focus on that and ignore the silly political debate over why it's flooding.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is very hard to tell what the issue is here. Her statement was absurd. Just pretend Trump said it. Then imagine how annoyed people would be with trump supporters coming back with statements about miami flooding and millions being spent to justify what he said. 

 
jon_mx said:
Meh.  That is not funny.  I am more interested in highlighting her stupid statements, which there seems to be an endless supply of.   
Click to expand...
Of course you are. 

And saying that commercial wasn’t funny is the least of it. It was highly offensive and dangerous and the Republican Party should disavow it. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
I don't think it is very hard to tell what the issue is here. Her statement was absurd. Just pretend Trump said it. Then imagine how annoyed people would be with trump supporters coming back with statements about miami flooding and millions being spent to justify what he said. 
Click to expand...
I'll be completely honest....if Trump had said this I'd be praising him to the hills and back....to the point where some would even consider me a "trump supporter".  I'd take him making this statement on climate change 10000000000000000000000 times over his current position and it's not even THAT close.

As I said in the comment...if this is genuinely about the timeframe, then.....nevermind.

 
The Commish said:
I'll be completely honest....if Trump had said this I'd be praising him to the hills and back....to the point where some would even consider me a "trump supporter".  I'd take him making this statement on climate change 10000000000000000000000 times over his current position and it's not even THAT close.

As I said in the comment...if this is genuinely about the timeframe, then.....nevermind.
Click to expand...
From the very beginning of climate change being an issue of concern, conservatives have attempted to use time frame predictions as a form of mockery. It’s effective, because we as a society are being asked to take steps that might punish our way of life now in order to prevent a future which we can’t see. That’s a difficult, perhaps impossible proposition. 

 
As I wrote my last post, I sort of had an epiphany: it occurred to me why AOC’s Green New Deal plans will never work under our form of government. It’s because the positive results of those plans- slowing down climate change- are invisible to the naked eye. So even if these restrictions are enacted, there’s just going to be some conservatives running for office a few years down the road with the purpose of repealing them, and they’ll be elected because the public won’t see any noticeable good result of the restrictions- even if climate change gets worse. 

The two greatest government technological achievements of the last century- the Manhattan Project and the space program- had one important element in common- they didn’t affect people’s lives. It seems to me that if we’re going to combat climate change, we have to do it somehow outside of people’s daily lives, which means coming up with new technologies and then offering relatively painless transition. Is this possible? I don’t know. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Of course you are. 

And saying that commercial wasn’t funny is the least of it. It was highly offensive and dangerous and the Republican Party should disavow it. 
Click to expand...
It isn't dangerous. This whole angle that the dems play at every turn these days is so stupid. What is the argument here? That people are going to burn her at the stake? GTFO. If people were truly this literal then she should be accused of trying to create a panic and riot situation in Miami. Instead people are just criticizing her comments for being dumb. Just like that ad is dumb. But it isn't dangerous. 

The same people that make this argument quickly criticize people that blame video games. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
It isn't dangerous. This whole angle that the dems play at every turn these days is so stupid. What is the argument here? That people are going to burn her at the stake? GTFO. If people were truly this literal then she should be accused of trying to create a panic and riot situation in Miami. Instead people are just criticizing her comments for being dumb. Just like that ad is dumb. But it isn't dangerous. 

The same people that make this argument quickly criticize people that blame video games. 
Click to expand...
That wasn’t the dangerous part. The dangerous part was spreading the idea that AOC’s brand of Democratic socialism is the moral equivalent of the Communist Khmer Rouge. That’s the sort of demagoguery that will make crazy types attack AOC. 

 
timschochet said:
From the very beginning of climate change being an issue of concern, conservatives have attempted to use time frame predictions as a form of mockery. It’s effective, because we as a society are being asked to take steps that might punish our way of life now in order to prevent a future which we can’t see. That’s a difficult, perhaps impossible proposition. 
Click to expand...
I must be missing a lot of conversations somewhere.  For a current day "conservative" to mock timeframes, on some level they have to acknowledge the thing the timeframes are being used to define.  I have seen very little evidence that "conservatives" acknowledge climate change.  Current day "conservatives" are much more likely to be of the "derp derp derp.....it's freezing outside today, where's that global warming people keep talking about" mold.  

Regardless, even after watching the link and reading the article one could easily make the argument that "in a few years" is wholly appropriate if you pause to consider the timeframe under which the climate is changing.  We're talking thousands of years...the next 50-60 years would easily qualify as "a few" on that scale.  This is why, IMO, this isn't all that different than the "57 states" gaffe or similar comments made by any number of other politicians.  There are plenty of stupid things she's said.  This isn't one I'd be rushing around using as the "hahahahahahaha.....AOC is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO stupid!!!!!!!!!!!" shtick.

 
timschochet said:
Of course you are. 

And saying that commercial wasn’t funny is the least of it. It was highly offensive and dangerous and the Republican Party should disavow it. 
Click to expand...
I find it for more offensive that a bunch of Democratic presidential candidate call Republicans white supremacist.  You only give a #### about right-wing rhetoric.  

 
timschochet said:
That wasn’t the dangerous part. The dangerous part was spreading the idea that AOC’s brand of Democratic socialism is the moral equivalent of the Communist Khmer Rouge. That’s the sort of demagoguery that will make crazy types attack AOC. 
Click to expand...
That's dumb, but not dangerous.  

And AOC is the same person who started with the "border control = Nazi Germany" thing, so she doesn't get to complain when somebody plays the same stupid hyperbole game against her.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
That's dumb, but not dangerous.  

And AOC is the same person who started with the "border control = Nazi Germany" thing, so she doesn't get to complain when somebody plays the same stupid hyperbole game against her.
Click to expand...
I’m the one complaining in this thread, not AOC. And I believe I criticized her for that and I used the exact same two words: offensive and dangerous. 

Its dangerous because of these crackpots like the guy in El Toro, or the one that shot the GOP congressmen. When you stop disagreeing with the other side and start declaring them evil, this is what you get. Words really do matter. 

 
jon_mx said:
I find it for more offensive that a bunch of Democratic presidential candidate call Republicans white supremacist.  You only give a #### about right-wing rhetoric.  
Click to expand...
Come on jon, you know I go after left wing rhetoric all the time. I’ve done so in this very thread. Some of AOC’s comments are terrible. 

But in this instance it’s not more offensive to use the term white supremacist because the current head of the Republican Party is a bigot and a white supremacist. Most Republicans are not, but the fact that they selected this guy to lead them is an embarrassment and a stain that they will have to live with for a long long time. When Democrats choose AOC to be their President, you can attack them with equal justification. Until then it’s not even close. 

 
timschochet said:
I’m the one complaining in this thread, not AOC. And I believe I criticized her for that and I used the exact same two words: offensive and dangerous. 
Click to expand...
Okay, that's consistent at least.

Edit: Also, I agree with you overall that we should be turning the rhetorical temperature down.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stating facts has become controversial. Is Miami gone in "a few years"? No, however, climate change is going to damage Miami more and more as the years go by. Too many people keep reading 140 characters and think that is all there is to the statement. There is more substance to AOC's posts than others who use Twitter. A person cannot read what two different people say in the exact same way. Comprehension is a key component to reading... unfortunately, not many seem to comprehend the written word well.

 
timschochet said:
I’m the one complaining in this thread, not AOC. And I believe I criticized her for that and I used the exact same two words: offensive and dangerous. 

Its dangerous because of these crackpots like the guy in El Toro, or the one that shot the GOP congressmen. When you stop disagreeing with the other side and start declaring them evil, this is what you get. Words really do matter. 
Click to expand...
Dont you worry, she has complained. 

 
-fish- said:
Yeah, the city of Miami is aware that this is a problem and has been both studying and preparing for rising ocean levels and higher storm surge.  Miami passed the "Miami Forever" bond in 2017, devoting over $200 million toward combating rising sea levels.
Click to expand...
You should send that link to AOC since it might help educate her. Looks like she might be off by about 8 decades.

 
Mario Kart said:
Stating facts has become controversial. Is Miami gone in "a few years"? No, however, climate change is going to damage Miami more and more as the years go by. Too many people keep reading 140 characters and think that is all there is to the statement. There is more substance to AOC's posts than others who use Twitter. A person cannot read what two different people say in the exact same way. Comprehension is a key component to reading... unfortunately, not many seem to comprehend the written word well.
Click to expand...
Lying and/or grossly exaggerating about the problem does not help.  Neither does offering solutions which have nothing to do with the issue.  She sets the discussion back.   Her methods are horrible.  She cares more about Socialism than climate change. 

 
jon_mx said:
Lying and/or grossly exaggerating about the problem does not help.  Neither does offering solutions which have nothing to do with the issue.  She sets the discussion back.   Her methods are horrible.  She cares more about Socialism than climate change. 
Click to expand...
Go into a trump thread and point out how alabama has spent money on hurricane research before so therefore trump was correct.

You would of course be laughed at. 

 
timschochet said:
As I wrote my last post, I sort of had an epiphany: it occurred to me why AOC’s Green New Deal plans will never work under our form of government.  
Click to expand...
AOC's green new deal was written as a far-left socialist agenda by her former campaign manager.  Labeling it the GND was an after thought to sell the plan to people too lazy to read it.  Why anyone still refers to it as a serious proposal/plan is silly. 

 
Sand said:
They are one and the same.  One will always bring the imagery of the other.

She knew exactly what she was saying and what she was referring to.
Click to expand...
No doubt the initial impression of her tweet was meant to shock and draw the reader to the article. The article, then, was very clear about the difference. Unfortunately many people never made it to the article.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Axios: Democrats Fear MAGA Republican Kari Lake Could Be Arizona's Next Governor (10/21/22 01:52 PST)
Replies
18
Views
779
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles
GordonGekko
OP/ED: J6 Committee's Liz Cheney Embodies The Worst Character Traits Of Donald Trump (6/24/22 18:05 PST)
Replies
26
Views
810
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top