The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
08-18-2019, 10:07 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
I remember back in 1996, downloading The Spirit of Christmas from Usenet onto the VAX 11/780 mainframe, and then shuttling back and forth between my dorm room and the campus data center with a pocket-full of floppy disks, until I'd managed to transfer the entire archive onto my 486 and then re-construct it into a playable video file.
It was pretty damn cool for the time. I suspect that for a lot of people, that was our first act of video piracy.
I also remember that the video played in a window much larger than the one shown above.
Reply
0
0
08-19-2019, 09:13 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
Liberals: We love science!
Also Liberals: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../30/1821204116
...
For young men of color, police use of force is among the leading causes of death.
You keep using the word leading...
According to the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lco...lack/index.htm
Homicide is the leading cause of death for black teens aged 15-24 at a 50% rate.
It's quite possible, we could jump to a conclusion here and assume that a lot of black youth are criminals, and the leading cause of death of criminals is police?
could it also be that 13% of the population is actually responsible for 52% of the crime?
Also Liberals: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../30/1821204116
Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex
...Significance
Police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in the United States. Over the life course, about 1 in every 1,000 black men can expect to be killed by police. Risk of being killed by police peaks between the ages of 20 y and 35 y for men and women and for all racial and ethnic groups. Black women and men and American Indian and Alaska Native women and men are significantly more likely than white women and men to be killed by police. Latino men are also more likely to be killed by police than are white men....
For young men of color, police use of force is among the leading causes of death.
According to the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lco...lack/index.htm
Homicide is the leading cause of death for black teens aged 15-24 at a 50% rate.
It's quite possible, we could jump to a conclusion here and assume that a lot of black youth are criminals, and the leading cause of death of criminals is police?
could it also be that 13% of the population is actually responsible for 52% of the crime?
Reply
0
0
08-19-2019, 10:48 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
A large part of what literature tends to frame as mad science is actually more like mad engineering.
Anyway, not long ago, someone said that, relatively speaking, the New York Times tended to have a somewhat right-leaning bias. So when I saw this headline in the NYT recently, my first thought was "If this is what right-leaning means these days, I want off this ride."
In order to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation.
Brutality? What brutality? You can't just presuppose that the economic model which has resulted in the greatest prosperity, and the highest average standard of living for those living under it, in the history of the world, is somehow inherently brutal and then write a whole article on that premise with no further explanation!
But, yeah, that's exactly what the article supposes. It's quite long, and so I won't flood the thread, you can read all about it here:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...apitalism.html
An excerpt:
Ah, I see. America is unique in that it's the only nation in the world ever to have allowed slavery to occur. And the majority of slaves brought into the US totally weren't sold by slave-trading companies based on the same western European nations whose hybrid socio-capitalist economic model the author seems to hold in such high esteem.
Anyway, not long ago, someone said that, relatively speaking, the New York Times tended to have a somewhat right-leaning bias. So when I saw this headline in the NYT recently, my first thought was "If this is what right-leaning means these days, I want off this ride."
In order to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation.
Brutality? What brutality? You can't just presuppose that the economic model which has resulted in the greatest prosperity, and the highest average standard of living for those living under it, in the history of the world, is somehow inherently brutal and then write a whole article on that premise with no further explanation!
But, yeah, that's exactly what the article supposes. It's quite long, and so I won't flood the thread, you can read all about it here:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...apitalism.html
An excerpt:
Those searching for reasons the American economy is uniquely severe and unbridled have found answers in many places (religion, politics, culture). But recently, historians have pointed persuasively to the gnatty fields of Georgia and Alabama, to the cotton houses and slave auction blocks, as the birthplace of America’s low-road approach to capitalism.
Ah, I see. America is unique in that it's the only nation in the world ever to have allowed slavery to occur. And the majority of slaves brought into the US totally weren't sold by slave-trading companies based on the same western European nations whose hybrid socio-capitalist economic model the author seems to hold in such high esteem.
Reply
0
0
08-19-2019, 01:32 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
That rhetoric though.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/18/senato...7zVCOUxtIk80GI
lol at Assault Rifle, it's a Tommy Gun. Back when we had to fight the law trying to take our alcohols.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/18/senato...7zVCOUxtIk80GI
Illinois state senator apologizes for staged Trump assassination photos at fundraiser
lol at Assault Rifle, it's a Tommy Gun. Back when we had to fight the law trying to take our alcohols.
Reply
0
0
08-19-2019, 02:14 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
the NYT on amazing award winning journalism:
objective journalism, 2019: run with a subjective narrative, even if it leaves you a little tiny bit flat-footed.
No bias, right Joe P?
The Times' staff-wide townhall meeting last Monday started off with Baquet addressing the paper's recent "missteps" in covering Trump, a reference in part to the "Unity vs. Racism" headline. Baquet then openly stated that the paper had built itself to push a narrative that ended up being false, leaving them "a little tiny bit flat-footed." Now, he explained repeatedly over the course of the 75-minute meeting, they are going to focus on how Trump "divides" the nation, particularly when it comes to race.
Here's Baquet in his opening statement to the staff admitting that they have approached "reporting" with a particular narrative in mind for the first half of Trump's term:
What "changed"? The Mueller report destroyed the narrative the paper had pushed for two years. And what new narrative has "emerged"? Here is Baquet spelling out the new "vision" for the paper:
Here's Baquet in his opening statement to the staff admitting that they have approached "reporting" with a particular narrative in mind for the first half of Trump's term:
Baquet: Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.
The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, “Holy ****, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.” And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?
The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, “Holy ****, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.” And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?
Baquet: I think that we’ve got to change. I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks? How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump? How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about? How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.
No bias, right Joe P?
Reply
1
1
08-19-2019, 02:42 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
well. i guess a Thompson is actually an assault rifle. Term is thrown around so much I forgot the real meaning (not just black, militaristic looking, commonly purchased so banning it would have greatest impact).
also, never forget this guy:
also, never forget this guy:
Facebook Post
Reply
0
0
08-19-2019, 10:00 PM
BLUF: The actual cartridge (caliber, bullet, shell, projectile, whatever) only matters with shotguns. In order to be a "shotgun", you have to fire an actual "shotgun shell". This is how you can have 9mm AR15's, and .308 Winchester pistols. BUT BASICALLY, THE ONLY THING THAT DETERMINES RIFLE/SHOTGUN or HANDGUN is FIRED FROM THE SHOULDER or INTENDED TO BE FIRED BY ONE HAND.
DEFINITION OF A SHOTGUN:
The term “Shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
DEFINITION OF A RIFLE:
The term “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
DEFINITION OF A PISTOL:
The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:
-a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);
-and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
DEFINITION OF A REVOLVER:
The term “Revolver” means a projectile weapon of the pistol type, having a breechloading chambered cylinder so arranged that the cocking of the hammer or movement of the trigger rotates it and brings the next cartridge in line with the barrel for firing.
When one of these definitions doesn't add up, we have AOW (Any Other Weapons):
DEFINITION OF AOW:
For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term “Any Other Weapon” means:
-Any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive;
-A pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell;
-Weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading; and
-Any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire.
The ATF has no classification for "assault rifle" or "submachine gun"... those are essentially made-up terms to describe what something looks like. "Assault pistol" is another. So is "fully semi-automatic".
When you fill out a form 4473, the standard "background check" form when completing a purchase (also called a "transfer) from an FFL, "Question #16 Type of Firearm" only has boxes for:
Handgun (Pistol or revolver)
Longgun (Rifle of Shotgun)
Other (Frame, receiver, Class3, etc...)
Question 16. Type of Firearm(s): "Other" refers to frames, receivers and other firearms that are neither handguns nor long guns (rifles or shotguns), such as firearms having a pistol grip that expel a shotgun shell, or National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms, including silencers. If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver not a handgun or long gun. However, frames and receivers are still "firearms" by definition, and subject to the same GCA limitations as any other firearms. See Section 921(a)(3)(B). Section 922(b)(1) makes it unlawful for a licensee to sell any firearm other than a shotgun or rifle to any person under the age of 21. Since a frame or receiver for a firearm, to include one that can only be made into a long gun, is a "firearm other than a shotgun or rifle," it cannot be transferred to anyone under the age of 21, nor can these firearms be transferred to anyone who is not a resident of the State where the transfer is to take place. Also, note that multiple sales forms are not required for frames or receivers of any firearms, or pistol grip shotguns, since they are not "pistols or revolvers" under Section 923(g)(3)(A).
When you fill out a Form4, which is the application for a Tax Stamp for a Class3 weapon, ie machine-gun or silencer or SBR, etc... Question 4:B asks: Type of Firearm. The definition of a firearm for a Form4:
c. Firearm. The term “firearm” means: (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modi fied has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e); (6) a machinegun; (7) a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition; and (8) a destructive device.
Rossi Circuit Judge... revolving rifle:
If you've never actually seen a 4473, here:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download
DEFINITION OF A SHOTGUN:
The term “Shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
DEFINITION OF A RIFLE:
The term “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
DEFINITION OF A PISTOL:
The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:
-a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);
-and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
DEFINITION OF A REVOLVER:
The term “Revolver” means a projectile weapon of the pistol type, having a breechloading chambered cylinder so arranged that the cocking of the hammer or movement of the trigger rotates it and brings the next cartridge in line with the barrel for firing.
When one of these definitions doesn't add up, we have AOW (Any Other Weapons):
DEFINITION OF AOW:
For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term “Any Other Weapon” means:
-Any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive;
-A pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell;
-Weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading; and
-Any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire.
The ATF has no classification for "assault rifle" or "submachine gun"... those are essentially made-up terms to describe what something looks like. "Assault pistol" is another. So is "fully semi-automatic".
When you fill out a form 4473, the standard "background check" form when completing a purchase (also called a "transfer) from an FFL, "Question #16 Type of Firearm" only has boxes for:
Handgun (Pistol or revolver)
Longgun (Rifle of Shotgun)
Other (Frame, receiver, Class3, etc...)
Question 16. Type of Firearm(s): "Other" refers to frames, receivers and other firearms that are neither handguns nor long guns (rifles or shotguns), such as firearms having a pistol grip that expel a shotgun shell, or National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms, including silencers. If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver not a handgun or long gun. However, frames and receivers are still "firearms" by definition, and subject to the same GCA limitations as any other firearms. See Section 921(a)(3)(B). Section 922(b)(1) makes it unlawful for a licensee to sell any firearm other than a shotgun or rifle to any person under the age of 21. Since a frame or receiver for a firearm, to include one that can only be made into a long gun, is a "firearm other than a shotgun or rifle," it cannot be transferred to anyone under the age of 21, nor can these firearms be transferred to anyone who is not a resident of the State where the transfer is to take place. Also, note that multiple sales forms are not required for frames or receivers of any firearms, or pistol grip shotguns, since they are not "pistols or revolvers" under Section 923(g)(3)(A).
When you fill out a Form4, which is the application for a Tax Stamp for a Class3 weapon, ie machine-gun or silencer or SBR, etc... Question 4:B asks: Type of Firearm. The definition of a firearm for a Form4:
c. Firearm. The term “firearm” means: (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modi fied has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e); (6) a machinegun; (7) a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition; and (8) a destructive device.
Rossi Circuit Judge... revolving rifle:
If you've never actually seen a 4473, here:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download
Reply
1
1
08-20-2019, 11:50 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
If so, you're attacking a point that nobody is making anymore. The idea of the "tolerant left" is not something that groups like Antifa have ever espoused. Quite to the contrary, their ideology is more closely related to groups like the Black Panther Party of the 1960s / 70s, who openly described themselves as socialist revolutionaries and advocated for a violent overthrow of the status-quo.
Actually, it occurs to me that the only meaningful difference between the present day Antifa and the 1960s Black Panther Party is that in addition to fighting the power, the Panthers actually did positive things within their own communities (health education, meal programs for schools, etc.)
Reply
0
0
08-20-2019, 03:03 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
Here's one that's truly disturbing:
I'm sorry, Shareholder Socialism? No, my friend. When you advocate that "the people" should own all businesses, with The State acting as a proxy for them, you've gone way beyond socialism. That's called nationalization, and it's one of the first steps down the road to actual, hardcore Marxist-Leninist communism. The kind which has produced such bountiful and prosperous nations as the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea. (You know, the kind where the government has to use military force to prevent its citizens from overthrowing it and hanging all of the party leaders.)
And yet I've no doubt that Americans will slurp it up.
The radical plan for taming capitalism: Give everyone a share of Wall Street
The economist Giacomo Corneo is a self-proclaimed socialist. A professor at the Free University of Berlin, Corneo is steeped in the writings of Karl Marx and, in conversation, rattles off the beliefs of the founder of communism. The professor works with Germany’s Green Party.
(...)
Corneo is part of a group of economists on the left who think they may have a better way, if not a substitute. Their idea is that rather than tax and redistribute income, the left’s traditional playbook, the government should slowly buy shares in public companies, becoming part owners in the corporate world.
Under this arrangement, the government would use the returns from these investments to pay out dividends, much as Wall Street investors already do, but to society at large, while also acting as a powerful investor that influences company decisions.
They call it “shareholder socialism.” Or as John Roemer, a Yale professor of political science and economics, puts it: “You make the worker a shareholder.”
Under this arrangement, the government would use the returns from these investments to pay out dividends, much as Wall Street investors already do, but to society at large, while also acting as a powerful investor that influences company decisions.
They call it “shareholder socialism.” Or as John Roemer, a Yale professor of political science and economics, puts it: “You make the worker a shareholder.”
(...)
I'm sorry, Shareholder Socialism? No, my friend. When you advocate that "the people" should own all businesses, with The State acting as a proxy for them, you've gone way beyond socialism. That's called nationalization, and it's one of the first steps down the road to actual, hardcore Marxist-Leninist communism. The kind which has produced such bountiful and prosperous nations as the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea. (You know, the kind where the government has to use military force to prevent its citizens from overthrowing it and hanging all of the party leaders.)
And yet I've no doubt that Americans will slurp it up.
Reply
0
0
