SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Good gravy.Don't forget Rick Santorum, he's part of Cruz's circus now too. That collection of ###-holes could be the worst candidate collective of all time.
Good gravy.Don't forget Rick Santorum, he's part of Cruz's circus now too. That collection of ###-holes could be the worst candidate collective of all time.
Don't forget that Glenn Beck supports Cruz so there is plenty of bat #### crazy support there too.SaintsInDome2006 said:1. Cruz/Fiorina/Santorum
Vs.
2. Trump/Carson/Huckabee
It's an interesting debate. I'm going to say Group 1 knows what "NATO" stands for and to a "man" would say that being pro nuclear weapon proliferation is bat sh|t crazy dumb.
I'm honestly not trying to be combative with this question - are you alleging negligence/recklessness, or intent? The systematic wording is confusing me. Systematic attempts to get the guns into the hands of criminals would be a prosecutable claim under the law as it exists.Off the top of my head, systematically creating a market that facilitates the transfer of their product to people who it can be reasonably believed will use them to commit criminal acts.
I'm not really comfortable with the full characterization of 3.I think we're at an impasse here. I believe your perspective (correct me if I'm wrong) is:
1. There's no examples you're aware of where a firearms manufacturer/retailer should have faced liability but did not by virtue of the PLCAA;
2. The federal government regulates firearms so this is simply an extension of that federal role; and
3. We're talking about lost lives, so legislative action is needed to protect against juries' likely inability to fairly administer justice.
My perspective is:
1. I don't know much enough about firearms safety devices or other measures to say that there's no situation where a manufacturer or retailer should have been liable but was protected by the PLCAA, now or in the future (laws don't automatically change as technology changes);
2. State governments handle products liability laws almost exclusively, and I don't see some overriding concern that created a need for federal intervention here;
3. If you choose to manufacture something that causes loss of life, losing the sympathies of juries is a risk you knowingly take. Manufacturers of fireworks, power tools and many other dangerous products are forced to do so, guns should be no different.
I think both perspectives are reasonable and I don't know that either of us can convince the other to change their mind.
By the way this obviously has nothing to do with Bernie; I disagree with the law but your argument in support of it is a good one and I don't have a problem with his position either way. He just needs to clarify it is all. I was arguing (and learning from) you here, not Sanders.
Also, I don't think for an instant that if I did anything else for a living I'd have the same position I do on this. All of my family disagrees with me. Everyone. Most of my friends. I really do understand. I just don't see the issue the same way.I think we're at an impasse here. I believe your perspective (correct me if I'm wrong) is:
1. There's no examples you're aware of where a firearms manufacturer/retailer should have faced liability but did not by virtue of the PLCAA;
2. The federal government regulates firearms so this is simply an extension of that federal role; and
3. We're talking about lost lives, so legislative action is needed to protect against juries' likely inability to fairly administer justice.
My perspective is:
1. I don't know much enough about firearms safety devices or other measures to say that there's no situation where a manufacturer or retailer should have been liable but was protected by the PLCAA, now or in the future (laws don't automatically change as technology changes);
2. State governments handle products liability laws almost exclusively, and I don't see some overriding concern that created a need for federal intervention here;
3. If you choose to manufacture something that causes loss of life, losing the sympathies of juries is a risk you knowingly take. Manufacturers of fireworks, power tools and many other dangerous products are forced to do so, guns should be no different.
I think both perspectives are reasonable and I don't know that either of us can convince the other to change their mind.
By the way this obviously has nothing to do with Bernie; I disagree with the law but your argument in support of it is a good one and I don't have a problem with his position either way. He just needs to clarify it is all. I was arguing (and learning from) you here, not Sanders.
Clinton didn't say that about Obama, some of her supporters did. She publicly rejected that stuff pretty clearly; you could maybe argue that she should have done so more forcefully, but she was a far cry from, say, Romney bragging about how nobody's ever asked to see his birth certificate because they know he's an American.Hillary 2008: I'm not even sure Sen. Obama is even a real American.
Hillary 2016: I'm not even sure Sen. Sanders is even a real Democrat.
Artful smears indeed. You're looking at the Queen.
Clinton didn't say that about Obama, some of her supporters did. She publicly rejected that stuff pretty clearly; you could maybe argue that she should have done so more forcefully, but she was a far cry from, say, Romney bragging about how nobody's ever asked to see his birth certificate because they know he's an American.
And the latter is totally fair. Sanders himself rejects the label in many places, including his stated affiliation as a Senator. And he's said that he's unsure about supporting down-ballot Democrats. That's absolutely fair game. I personally don't care that much, but the truth is the truth, not a smear.
Hillary 2008: I'm not even sure Sen. Obama is even a real American.Clinton didn't say that about Obama, some of her supporters did. She publicly rejected that stuff pretty clearly; you could maybe argue that she should have done so more forcefully, but she was a far cry from, say, Romney bragging about how nobody's ever asked to see his birth certificate because they know he's an American.
And the latter is totally fair. Sanders himself rejects the label in many places, including his stated affiliation as a Senator. And he's said that he's unsure about supporting down-ballot Democrats. That's absolutely fair game. I personally don't care that much, but the truth is the truth, not a smear.
Look, I'm not going to get into some lawyerly thing with you. I assume the lawyers who would be bringing the lawsuits are phrasing it in accordance with legal standards.I'm honestly not trying to be combative with this question - are you alleging negligence/recklessness, or intent? The systematic wording is confusing me. Systematic attempts to get the guns into the hands of criminals would be a prosecutable claim under the law as it exists.
Negligent advertising and public nuisance cases never really worked. Everyone thought they did in Chicago and New York for about two years, but they didn't - they were all gutted on appeal.
Chicago v. Beretta got killed in the Illinois Supreme Court. Hamilton got destroyed on appeal. It just wasn't viable.
Did his best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Hillary tell them to do it? I guess it's pretty serious.Hillary 2008: I'm not even sure Sen. Obama is even a real American.
NoQuarterUSA generated that smear, it was run by Larry Johnson, who was later employed by Sidney Blumenthal.
Anyone who paid attention at the time knows the birther crap and Mooslim smears were a thinly veiled attempt to paint him as un-American. Hell, McCain did a better job addressing that issue than Hillary did. She claims to be a novice politician. She knows exactly what she is doing. This gun thing is the latest example.I knew about the video, which is why I said "you could argue that she should have done so more forcefully."
But that's not remotely close to the position you paraphrased for her. Hell, even if you think she's calling him a Muslim (which, to be clear, she's not doing at all), it still has nothing to do with whether or not he's an American.
This is a ridiculous argument you're making, and it's pretty ironic that you're doing it in the context of complaining about smears.
Yes, they were, but they didn't come from Clinton.Anyone who paid attention at the time knows the birther cap and Mooslim smears were a thinly veiled attempt to paint him as un-American. Hell, McCain did a better job addressing that issue than Hillary did. She claims to be a novice politician. She knowsaid exactly what she is doing. This gun thing is the latest example.
Larry Johnson is an actual guy, he's not some mystery persona alleged to have done x, y, z. His site is still up.Did his best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Hillary tell them to do it? I guess it's pretty serious.
By the way don't ever try to google this quote at work unless you know it by heart. Getting it wrong gives you some pretty scary porn links.
Nope. No it didn't.The "Obama isn't eligible to run for President because he's Kenyan" stuff dropped during the Democratic primary. That stuff came from Hillary anonymously. That's all forgotten in hindsight since it was the Republicans that took off with it.
Alrighty. Thanks.Look, I'm not going to get into some lawyerly thing with you. I assume the lawyers who would be bringing the lawsuits are phrasing it in accordance with legal standards.
Of course he is. Who could forget that epic 1990 UNLV team, or the Grandmama commercials, or the LJ arm gesture, or his four point play to beat the Pacers in the Eastern Conference Finals.Larry Johnson is an actual guy, he's not some mystery persona alleged to have done x, y, z. His site is still up.
You don't find the science of a large metal container being held in the air by floating atoms often large distances apart to be pretty amazing?Hillary's amazed at how an aeroplane can stay afloat in the clouds but Bernie gets flack for not realizing that subways don't use tokens anymore. Ok.
They aren't awarded officially until June or something.Bernie won 72.7% of Washington's 118 delegates (which would equate to 86) but the media is still only reporting he won 25.
What gives?
Here Sidney Blumenthal cites NoQuarterUSA in privately writing to Hillary.Of course he is. Who could forget that epic 1990 UNLV team, or the Grandmama commercials, or the LJ arm gesture, or his four point play to beat the Pacers in the Eastern Conference Finals.
Anyway, real or not the connection to Clinton is iffy at best.
Did you see my post on the previous page listing all the CNN political headlines that mentioned Bernie? It's a damn farce.Bernie won 72.7% of Washington's 118 delegates (which would equate to 86) but the media is still only reporting he won 25.
What gives?
Why, yes, I can understand when the old folk reminisce about the first time they saw their first horseless carriage or when they first heard of the Wright brothers.You don't find the science of a large metal container being held in the air by floating atoms often large distances apart to be pretty amazing?
You don't think it's controversial to allege that something came from directly from Clinton despite there being absolutely no evidence to support that allegation? I don't really care for the whole "connect the dots" nonsense; it's essentially the same reasoning the GOP used to attack Obama on Ayers and Wright. It was stupid then and it's stupid now. If you want to criticize the candidate, criticize what the candidate says or does, not what a friend of a friend of the candidate says or does.Here Sidney Blumenthal cites NoQuarterUSA in privately writing to Hillary.
http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05777837.pdf
This isn't particularly controversial stuff. Johnson worked for Blumenthal directly, Blumethal forwarded his work to Hillary.
http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05763251.pdf
The real flaw in your logic here was your assertion that there was a double standard at play because Clinton got no flack for wondering about airplanes while you were giving her flack for doing so in the same breath.Why, yes, I can understand when the old folk reminisce about the first time they saw their first horseless carriage or when they first heard of the Wright brothers.
I'll bet you play a mean pinball.You guys sure love to blame Hillary for a lot of stuff. The Birther stuff, the Panama Papers. What's next? Seriously you're beginning to sound like the right wing "blame Obama" nuts.
Who's blaming HRC for that?the Panama Papers
You mean she is cracking under the pressure and making an error in judgement? Again?Attacking Bernie as a non-Democrat is a valid criticism. It's also a stupid criticism, IMO, in today's climate. Most of Bernie's supporters will read that and say, "damn right!"
Hillary should just leave Bernie alone, continue to point out policy differences when there are some, and concentrate on the Republicans. She's going to win New York because it's a closed primary and the demographics favor her (more blacks.) She's overthinking this.
Listening to you, I get the music.I'll bet you play a mean pinball.
I don't she's really to blame for the Panama papers other than showing poor judgement in pushing to get it passed. I hope that's as far as she's involved. Though I'm not sure anyone is blaming her beyond that.You guys sure love to blame Hillary for a lot of stuff. The Birther stuff, the Panama Papers. What's next? Seriously you're beginning to sound like the right wing "blame Obama" nuts.
She's not the best of campaigners. I've acknowledged this several times. I think she will make an excellent President.You mean she is cracking under the pressure and making an error in judgement? Again?
Sounds like presidential material to me!
Compared against what bar? On what issues? I agree she's going to be miles better than whatever the Republicans look to be putting forth right now. No contest in that regard. Compared to Bernie? I think she'd be far from an excellent President.She's not the best of campaigners. I've acknowledged this several times. I think she will make an excellent President.
I believe—and most democrats believe—that compared to Bernie she'd make an excellent president.Compared against what bar? On what issues? I agree she's going to be miles better than whatever the Republicans look to be putting forth right now. No contest in that regard. Compared to Bernie? I think she'd be far from an excellent President.
I think this depends entirely on what issues you prioritize.I believe—and most democrats believe—that compared to Bernie she'd make an excellent president.
Well, we disagree. I think she will be a better President than Obama, and I think he's been pretty good. I like Bernie but I don't believe he would be a good President, for a variety of reasons.Compared against what bar? On what issues? I agree she's going to be miles better than whatever the Republicans look to be putting forth right now. No contest in that regard. Compared to Bernie? I think she'd be far from an excellent President.
Ok NoQuarter USA was first at large publishing the Obama smears in 2007-08. That's not controversial, nor is the fact that Johnson worked for Blumenthal in 2009 (and on).You don't think it's controversial to allege that something came from directly from Clinton despite there being absolutely no evidence to support that allegation? I don't really care for the whole "connect the dots" nonsense; it's essentially the same reasoning the GOP used to attack Obama on Ayers and Wright. It was stupid then and it's stupid now. If you want to criticize the candidate, criticize what the candidate says or does, not what a friend of a friend of the candidate says or does.
It's particularly amusing that today this allegation was presented in the form of someone complaining about smears directed at Sanders.
I'm dropping this official hijack, I just felt the need to explain to Tobias (and I'm sure he will drop it too, he doesn't have to agree, I respect him and his opinion), I will say though one of the funniest things throughout this process has been how Hillary's own emails are treated as , which, to me, is actual .
It's fairly common knowledge where the photo of.Obama.in traditional.garb in Africa came from. Her campaign had a.hand in starting the birther and Muslim stuff. We aren't talking chemtrails.here
No, her campaign didn't have a hand in it.It's fairly common knowledge where the photo of.Obama.in traditional.garb in Africa came from. Her campaign had a.hand in starting the birther and Muslim stuff. We aren't talking chemtrails.here