Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
John Bender
Footballguy
John Bender
Footballguy
I take some of that back. He did conspire to screw me over in the Tim FFA Football League. But I wrote him a song, performed it, recorded it and uploaded it as an olive branch 
ScottNorwood
Footballcutie
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Gawain
Footballguy
In the Trump thread I made a comparison between attacks on his appearance and the bullying directed towards you in this forum.
You directly stated that you weren't bullied, there's no bullying and that you're not a 14 year old girl.
You've now locked yourself in one thread because of the meanies...
You directly stated that you weren't bullied, there's no bullying and that you're not a 14 year old girl.
You've now locked yourself in one thread because of the meanies...
timschochet
Footballguy
No no no. It's not bullying. You can't be bulled in a discussion forum.
I'm just sick of the nonsense, that's all. When it comes to serious issues, I want to have serious discussion. When people post stupid stuff I find myself responding to it, and it makes me feel stupid. I don't like to call anybody names. I prefer to have an open discussion of ideas. But lately all I've been doing is getting pissed off, and so I write stuff that I shouldn't, and I feel like a fool. I'm sick of the nonsense, but I'm contributing to it. I hate that.
McGarnicle
Footballguy
Holy crap, the best player in the world is from there, Paul McBeth.
timschochet
Footballguy
Really? I don't know the name, sorry.
McGarnicle
Footballguy
I've learned two things that are really valuable for navigating this place: liberal use of the ignore function really does work, and often no reply at all to an idiot is a more powerful statement than any actual reply you could type. It takes discipline though.timschochet said:
psychobillies
Footballguy
I should have included sexism and homophobia in my comment. Politicians use one or the other interchangeably in order to advance their agendas. Look no further than Hilary. When Bernie started gaining in the polls, she completely twisted his comments about gun control so that she could label him a sexist. It seemed insane to me, but it worked. Happens all the time.timschochet said:
psychobillies
Footballguy
And for the record, I'm a Tim fan. I disagree much of the time, but few bring more honest debate to these forums, and always in a civil manner.
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
An error occurredYou have reached your quota of positive votes for the dayJohn Bender said:I take some of that back. He did conspire to screw me over in the Tim FFA Football League. But I wrote him a song, performed it, recorded it and uploaded it as an olive branch
McGarnicle
Footballguy
Exactly. Tim is so far out in left field on most issues and is wrong for America, but he's a gentleman.
timschochet
Footballguy
Comment on the latest news story: a "Messianic Jew" is not a Jew; it's a Christian who celebrates Jewish holidays.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Nicholas Thalasinos - sounds Greek, not that you can totally tell by the name. But if so, so what? Holy cow, could Farooq even tell the difference?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tim, this isn't like before. You can bounce around. Don't let this bug you. Jesus, you know Squizz doesn't want to just hear me yap all day long in the Hillary thread, the man needs some help for cryin' out loud!squistion said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Probably not. Seemed like that guy was pretty hardcore anti-muslim too...
Thanks for the info tim
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Odd bunch. Heavily in favor of weed and gay marriage but also will generally not deny the military a single shekel lest physically crushing an opponent is removed as an option. Largely resists social welfare reforms and progressive economic policies and would be thrilled with the end of universal suffrage. So yeah it's pretty conservative here. I blame football.WhatDoIKnow said:
timschochet
Footballguy
OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:
1. Do you believe that increased gun control measures might have prevented yesterday's attack? If so, which measures and how would they have helped?
2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?
3. The police yesterday used armored vehicles. Is this a good argument as to why police forces should have this type of military equipment? Or do you prefer if they didn't?
4. Yesterday's attack was not prevented by the NSA's collection of metadata. Is that because what the NSA is doing will never stop these sorts of attacks, and therefore the NSA should stop (since many believe it is a violation of our civil liberties)? Or should the NSA continue collecting metadata, since chances are they will stop future attacks? Or should the NSA actually increase their efforts, as some Republican congressmen want (like Kevin McCarthy)?
5. In my disagreement with Ministry of Pain, I came out against profiling of Middle Eastern looking people. He is for it. He thinks it's necessary to keep us safe, while I worry it will lead to bigotry against a lot of innocent people. Which side do you come down on?
6. If yesterday's attack turns out to be ISIS related, should the USA retaliate against ISIS? If so, what specifically should we do that we are not doing?
7. Does it bother you whether or not our leaders, including Obama, refer to this as a terrorist attack, or as an act of radical Islam? Why or why not?
That's all for now. I'll probably think of more later.
1. Do you believe that increased gun control measures might have prevented yesterday's attack? If so, which measures and how would they have helped?
2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?
3. The police yesterday used armored vehicles. Is this a good argument as to why police forces should have this type of military equipment? Or do you prefer if they didn't?
4. Yesterday's attack was not prevented by the NSA's collection of metadata. Is that because what the NSA is doing will never stop these sorts of attacks, and therefore the NSA should stop (since many believe it is a violation of our civil liberties)? Or should the NSA continue collecting metadata, since chances are they will stop future attacks? Or should the NSA actually increase their efforts, as some Republican congressmen want (like Kevin McCarthy)?
5. In my disagreement with Ministry of Pain, I came out against profiling of Middle Eastern looking people. He is for it. He thinks it's necessary to keep us safe, while I worry it will lead to bigotry against a lot of innocent people. Which side do you come down on?
6. If yesterday's attack turns out to be ISIS related, should the USA retaliate against ISIS? If so, what specifically should we do that we are not doing?
7. Does it bother you whether or not our leaders, including Obama, refer to this as a terrorist attack, or as an act of radical Islam? Why or why not?
That's all for now. I'll probably think of more later.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's an interesting question. The right of center ones are more vocal. I note that in many if not most of the political debate threads, there are 3-4 conservatives for every 1 liberal. So I'd have to say that, at least in terms of who is posting, he's correct.WhatDoIKnow said:
(Also, most of the liberal people in this forum are pretty damn liberal- Bernie Sanders supporters. )
roadkill1292
Footballguy
We're not really super liberal. We're just twenty years early.
timschochet
Footballguy
That's pretty astute, actually.
timschochet
Footballguy
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I think stricter registration laws may have (I stress may) prevented it. The question is what additional laws would be necessary to have law enforcement act on what appears to be stockpiling of firearms. The perpetrators could probably find ways around such laws (have proxies buy guns for them, etc.), but at least you'd make things a bit more difficult and the more people you involve in plots like that the more chance you have of one of them slipping up.
Maybe all that's needed is strict registration and monitoring of the assault weapon type firearms that make it easier to go on sprees like this. And I do mean monitoring - if you register as the purchaser/owner of one of these types of weapons you'd be required to prove continued possession annually, semi annually or something like that. Which of course means more bureaucracy - hooray!
There's no perfect solution, but that doesn't mean something wouldn't be better than how we're (not really) handling it right now.
Of course none of that addresses bombs. I don't think you can do much there unfortunately. The list of ingredients useful for making explosives is so long, and some of them so common I have little hope you could devise any sort of system for monitoring/preventing their creation.
It's a scary precipice we're being driven toward by these #######s - the police state is now technologically possible (if not already here). We need to be brave enough not to embrace it.
The real question is, assuming the values of individual rights, liberty and equality are superior to their alternative, how do we coax these people out of their dark age. These other issues are just symptoms of that problem.
Maybe all that's needed is strict registration and monitoring of the assault weapon type firearms that make it easier to go on sprees like this. And I do mean monitoring - if you register as the purchaser/owner of one of these types of weapons you'd be required to prove continued possession annually, semi annually or something like that. Which of course means more bureaucracy - hooray!
There's no perfect solution, but that doesn't mean something wouldn't be better than how we're (not really) handling it right now.
Of course none of that addresses bombs. I don't think you can do much there unfortunately. The list of ingredients useful for making explosives is so long, and some of them so common I have little hope you could devise any sort of system for monitoring/preventing their creation.
It's a scary precipice we're being driven toward by these #######s - the police state is now technologically possible (if not already here). We need to be brave enough not to embrace it.
The real question is, assuming the values of individual rights, liberty and equality are superior to their alternative, how do we coax these people out of their dark age. These other issues are just symptoms of that problem.
Last edited by a moderator:
McGarnicle
Footballguy
1. No2. No
3. Obviously they are necessary if we're going to start seeing multiple gunmen with assault rifles and bombs.
4. Tricky one but I'm generally in favor of privacy. I want more data on how effective the metadata really is in preventing terrorist acts. I do believe a tradeoff of limited private info in exchange for significantly fewer threats is not unreasonable but I want proof.
5. Unfortunately I fear that if FBI/CIA aren't actively infiltrating/monitoring those communities, we're at increased risk. But similar to #4, I want to know what that entails and what is the cost/benefit.
6. At this point ISIS is whack-a-mole. They're spreading like a cancer throughout the middle east so I don't know where we could strike them that would have any impact to the whole. But I don't like standing pat and watching them take over the region either. Looks like we'll be at war with these ####ers for the foreseeable future.
7. I couldn't care less what Obama says on this or most other issues. But I think maybe he doesn't want to insult a whole group of peaceful people for the actions of a few. Unlike Trump, Obama is measured and thoughtful with his words. So all things considered, I don't care if he specifically says "Islam" when referring to this attack and I don't think it's necessary to get his point across.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well, I may be incorrect about this, but I think that ANY kind of registration would be stricter than we have now, since we have no registration of firearms to speak of.
John Bender
Footballguy
I'm about as clueless as them come politically. You pretty much convinced me alone Hillary was the best candidate (of course I'm still not sure 
) but since you did fire up the tim only thread thing again, I'll jump in. Maybe sometimes it's nice to see the perspective of someone who is up to date on things but literally feels no allegiance to any ideas, parties, candidates that are long standing or deep rooted (I vacillated between Rubio, Hillary and Bernie so far as my favorites this primary season ). I'm literally all over the place with political stances and change my mind more often than you do. I, like you, don't like extreme on either side - it seems just sophomoric to me to put yourself on a side and then rationalize your position backwards, as opposed to figuring out what you agree with and then worrying about where that puts you later. Or then again - maybe it's not so useful to see the thoughts of someone so uninformed I guess.
) but since you did fire up the tim only thread thing again, I'll jump in. Maybe sometimes it's nice to see the perspective of someone who is up to date on things but literally feels no allegiance to any ideas, parties, candidates that are long standing or deep rooted (I vacillated between Rubio, Hillary and Bernie so far as my favorites this primary season ). I'm literally all over the place with political stances and change my mind more often than you do. I, like you, don't like extreme on either side - it seems just sophomoric to me to put yourself on a side and then rationalize your position backwards, as opposed to figuring out what you agree with and then worrying about where that puts you later. Or then again - maybe it's not so useful to see the thoughts of someone so uninformed I guess.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks. I suspect most conservatives are going to agree with you on points #1,2, and 3. There's a lot more division on 4 and 5, and 6 is all over the map.
On the last point, I've noticed that's a big talking point for Tea Party types and the like. Most everyone else is like you, don't really care.
timschochet
Footballguy
Very thoughtful answers, thanks.I'm about as clueless as them come politically. You pretty much convinced me alone Hillary was the best candidate (of course I'm still not sure
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks Slapdash.
Per #4- I heard an interview yesterday with Kevin McCarthy (majority whip) right after the attack and he made a big deal out a new bill he's proposing that deals with encryption. I didn't quite understand the difference between what he was proposing and what we are doing now, but it was obvious that he wanted to increase the effort.
timschochet
Footballguy
John Bender wrote:
if I saw 6 middle eastern looking 40 year old men all move into a house next door to me and start working in their garage all hours of their night, I'd find this suspicious. If it were 6 20 year old college aged kids, I'd probably think they were frat brothers and smoking weed in the garage. If that is bigoted, then I guess I am one, but it's just based on life experiences, knowledge, and being aware of the world.
This troubles me, because earlier I wrote that such behavior would indeed be bigoted. But now I'm doubting myself about that, because this seems like a very reasonable, NOT bigoted response.
This is such a hard issue for me. I am really afraid right now for Muslims and Middle Eastern looking people. Trump's rhetoric, which the Republican party has failed to condemn, has really set me on edge. On the other hand, what Bender wrote makes sense. Dammit.
if I saw 6 middle eastern looking 40 year old men all move into a house next door to me and start working in their garage all hours of their night, I'd find this suspicious. If it were 6 20 year old college aged kids, I'd probably think they were frat brothers and smoking weed in the garage. If that is bigoted, then I guess I am one, but it's just based on life experiences, knowledge, and being aware of the world.
This troubles me, because earlier I wrote that such behavior would indeed be bigoted. But now I'm doubting myself about that, because this seems like a very reasonable, NOT bigoted response.
This is such a hard issue for me. I am really afraid right now for Muslims and Middle Eastern looking people. Trump's rhetoric, which the Republican party has failed to condemn, has really set me on edge. On the other hand, what Bender wrote makes sense. Dammit.
John Bender
Footballguy
I kinda liked Slapdash's response more than mine to be honest. Because I agree with you, I would hate for American born and peaceful US resident folks who identify as Muslim to ever be caught up in such a situation based on what they look like. My significant other (my jewish significant other) spends a third of her year in middle eastern countries helping students get enrolled in college in America and comes back with such great stories about the people in these places. My best friends wife is Yemeni and the nicest person I know. So, I hear you. It really sucks, but that's what I'd be feeling if the above scenario happened next door to me. I think MoP's comments/position are WAY too far on the other side. But I think there is some middle ground. Folks travelling to and from these countries with ISIS breeding grounds should probably be profiled to an extent and within reason until times change again for the better. I'm ok with that as long as it's done responsibly and by the government.
Unfortunately, people are scared ####less. Randomly in the grocery store aisle yesterday some lady started telling me, literally out of the blue, about how crazy it was what happened in California and how she's so scared to death of even being out in the store. I guess I walked up behind her a bit too quietly and scared the crap out of her. These are the types of folks I could see taking the MoP viewpoint and there are a LOT of them. It's especially noticeable now that I've moved to the south after spending much of my life outside of Boston and Philadelphia.
Last edited by a moderator:
McGarnicle
Footballguy
I'm always a pragmatist first and foremost. Find the best solution, leave the politicking to others.
McGarnicle
Footballguy
I think it's a bit comical that people worry about privacy but have a Facebook page.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
1. Do you believe that increased gun control measures might have prevented yesterday's attack? If so, which measures and how would they have helped?
Not yesterday. There are already way too many guns out there. However, I think that a few measures that don't really matter too much as far as "taking our guns away" might allow a start of a more meaningful conversation. I doubt "gun control" will ever achieve much, but maybe if we can create an atmosphere where incidents like this didn't send people rushing to arm themselves not for protection, but "before it is too late". I'd also expect that California is already way ahead of what you'd expect out of the federal government.
2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?
I can't imagine any positive coming of a "good Samaritan" adding more gun fire, especially yesterday.
3. The police yesterday used armored vehicles. Is this a good argument as to why police forces should have this type of military equipment? Or do you prefer if they didn't?
What did they actually do yesterday? While their was plenty of doubt at the time didn't they show up after the perpetrators were dead?
4. Yesterday's attack was not prevented by the NSA's collection of metadata. Is that because what the NSA is doing will never stop these sorts of attacks, and therefore the NSA should stop (since many believe it is a violation of our civil liberties)? Or should the NSA continue collecting metadata, since chances are they will stop future attacks? Or should the NSA actually increase their efforts, as some Republican congressmen want (like Kevin McCarthy)?
Even if the NSA was able to stop this, we should stop.
5. In my disagreement with Ministry of Pain, I came out against profiling of Middle Eastern looking people. He is for it. He thinks it's necessary to keep us safe, while I worry it will lead to bigotry against a lot of innocent people. Which side do you come down on?
Humans have evolved to pattern match. It is our nature. Most of the time it serves us well. Its really hard to turn this off. As a society we should strive to urn off this kind of thinking, but we should also be honest that it is natural for us as individuals and will happen.
6. If yesterday's attack turns out to be ISIS related, should the USA retaliate against ISIS? If so, what specifically should we do that we are not doing?
Aren't we going to anyway? Would ISIS related include being inspired by ISIS propaganda but having no other meaningful ties?
7. Does it bother you whether or not our leaders, including Obama, refer to this as a terrorist attack, or as an act of radical Islam? Why or why not?
Seems to me that those calling for these words are the first ones all upset when one speculates that something was right wing domestic terrorism. However, I would love to see Ted Cruz invited to the White House and Obama repeat those words a dozen times or so,
I just think that the "we can't accept this" rhetoric with pet solutions to fix this by taking away one freedom or another for the perception of safety is almost always misguided. I don't know how to fix it so that we never have these incidents but stripping away freedoms is going to take a lot of convincing to make it worth it.
Not yesterday. There are already way too many guns out there. However, I think that a few measures that don't really matter too much as far as "taking our guns away" might allow a start of a more meaningful conversation. I doubt "gun control" will ever achieve much, but maybe if we can create an atmosphere where incidents like this didn't send people rushing to arm themselves not for protection, but "before it is too late". I'd also expect that California is already way ahead of what you'd expect out of the federal government.
2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?
I can't imagine any positive coming of a "good Samaritan" adding more gun fire, especially yesterday.
3. The police yesterday used armored vehicles. Is this a good argument as to why police forces should have this type of military equipment? Or do you prefer if they didn't?
What did they actually do yesterday? While their was plenty of doubt at the time didn't they show up after the perpetrators were dead?
4. Yesterday's attack was not prevented by the NSA's collection of metadata. Is that because what the NSA is doing will never stop these sorts of attacks, and therefore the NSA should stop (since many believe it is a violation of our civil liberties)? Or should the NSA continue collecting metadata, since chances are they will stop future attacks? Or should the NSA actually increase their efforts, as some Republican congressmen want (like Kevin McCarthy)?
Even if the NSA was able to stop this, we should stop.
5. In my disagreement with Ministry of Pain, I came out against profiling of Middle Eastern looking people. He is for it. He thinks it's necessary to keep us safe, while I worry it will lead to bigotry against a lot of innocent people. Which side do you come down on?
Humans have evolved to pattern match. It is our nature. Most of the time it serves us well. Its really hard to turn this off. As a society we should strive to urn off this kind of thinking, but we should also be honest that it is natural for us as individuals and will happen.
6. If yesterday's attack turns out to be ISIS related, should the USA retaliate against ISIS? If so, what specifically should we do that we are not doing?
Aren't we going to anyway? Would ISIS related include being inspired by ISIS propaganda but having no other meaningful ties?
7. Does it bother you whether or not our leaders, including Obama, refer to this as a terrorist attack, or as an act of radical Islam? Why or why not?
Seems to me that those calling for these words are the first ones all upset when one speculates that something was right wing domestic terrorism. However, I would love to see Ted Cruz invited to the White House and Obama repeat those words a dozen times or so,
I just think that the "we can't accept this" rhetoric with pet solutions to fix this by taking away one freedom or another for the perception of safety is almost always misguided. I don't know how to fix it so that we never have these incidents but stripping away freedoms is going to take a lot of convincing to make it worth it.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Oh, sorry about your bet...
Haven't heard him but a popular belief among politicians (Hillary included) is that Silicon Valley companies should allow backdoors into their encryption so that the government (and anyone else sophisticated) can access. Not something done currently (although NSA tries to bribe individuals to do it for them).
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah, it looks like after all this time I'm going to have to pay tommyboy $500. Dammit.
Oh well, at least jon mx is going to owe me $100....
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks. I'll probably get bored with it eventually, like I did before. I'm gonna stick to it for now, though.I like you, Tim, and I think you bring a lot to the FFA. I hate to see you confine yourself to one thread.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
1. It's not a gun control issue, so it's irrelevant. So to answer your questions, no and n/a.
Similar threads
