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.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (9 Viewers)

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.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that Glenn Beck supports Cruz so there is plenty of bat #### crazy support there too.

 
I don't agree with Bernie's position on the gun issue being raised here. 

But it's not a big issue for me. It's a distraction. I could never vote for or against a President as a result of something as minor as this, compared to the economy, climate change, national security, etc. 

 
pantagrapher said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
TobiasFunke said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not really comfortable with the full characterization of 3.  

Yeah, I don't think people who want more gun regulation are out of line.  I want more gun regulation.  And in frustration, a lot of people turned to the courts to try to make the nuisiance of the suits enough to change what gun manufacturers do.  I just disagree with that approach.  And I think that's why it's a reasonable law to pass.

The biggest issue for me is your 2.  Products liability isn't affected by this, except in the case that a manufacturer can't be held liable for a product defect if it's used in a volitional, criminal act that causes the damage.  I certainly understand people being reticent to accept that.  But the criminal act is what should likely be held responsible there.

If we want to take on the gun manufacturers, the proper way to do that is to legislate them in my opinion.  And some of that legislation can be advertising legislation - which, if violated, can still be sued on under the Act.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
Hillary is 100% wrong on this gun issue. She is playing on people's emotions in a very disgraceful manner. I'm a big supporter of more gun control laws but saying victims should be able to sue manufacturera based on current law and hold them liable for the actions of consumers of their product is asinine.

 
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.

 
cap'n grunge said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
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.
Click to expand...
 






Ads by Revconten
Watch this exchange with on “60 Minutes” when Hillary was asked by Steve Kroft whether she believe Obama was a Muslim. Ooh there’s a stinger at the end.









“You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?” Kroft asked.

Of course not. I mean, that’s, you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” she answered.

“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s a Muslim?” Kroft said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on,” Clinton said, adding, “As far as I know.”

Gosh Mrs. Clinton that’s a real rousing vote of confidence, isn’t it?


 
TobiasFunke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
Henry Ford said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
TobiasFunke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cap'n grunge said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, they were, but they didn't come from Clinton.

And you haven't even mentioned your other alleged "smear"- an allegation so scandalous that Sanders himself embraced it wholeheartedly for 30 years.

 
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.

 
TobiasFunke said:
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.
Click to expand...
Larry Johnson is an actual guy, he's not some mystery persona alleged to have done x, y, z. His site is still up.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Larry Johnson is an actual guy, he's not some mystery persona alleged to have done x, y, z. His site is still up.
Click to expand...
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.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?

 
TobiasFunke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

 
cstu said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.

 
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. 

 
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. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Also Sanders was getting flack (minimal flack btw) for saying he had used the subway recently and knew how it worked and then getting it wrong. I'm not sure what the Clinton airplane quote has to do with that, the context is totally different.

 
timschochet said:
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. 
Click to expand...
You mean she is cracking under the pressure and making an error in judgement? Again? 

Sounds like presidential material to me! 

 
timschochet said:
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. 
Click to expand...
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. 

 
timschochet said:
She's not the best of campaigners. I've acknowledged this several times. I think she will make an excellent President. 
Click to expand...
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. 

 
AnonymousBob said:
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. 
Click to expand...
I believe—and most democrats believe—that compared to Bernie she'd make an excellent president.

 
AnonymousBob said:
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. 
Click to expand...
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. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).

- In 2009 its owner and sole author is working for Sidney Blumenthal. That is not connecting the dots, that's a fact. I will grant that there is no direct tie from Hillary to Johnson in 2007-08, but then we have no data trail stretching that far back. I am guessing there may have been a line from Brock or Blumenthal or both to him back then, and I agree don't really think Hillary knows every detail of what her henchmen do. But do I think she minds what they do? No.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
538
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
464
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
817
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Top