But no one wants to take your guns, right?

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a
woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they
should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video
recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were
getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I
just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels
about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun
ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise
Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't
win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau
said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will
not win.'"

«13

Comments

  • They showed their hand too soon.


  • Has anyone else noticed the Leftist trend of calling any organization that opposed them "a terrorist organization"?  Mostly, but not only, the NRA.  When asked why they'd believe such a thing, the typical response seems to be, "Because they are."

    I'm running out of creative ways of calling them idiots or insane.
  • That’s not really a trend, that’s standard Marxist doctrine... “otherize” your opponent.
  • The whole "X is a terrorist organization" thing is tired and stupid. Nobody who says that deserves one second of consideration, unless the
    X is ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, etc. You know, an actual terrorist organization.
  • New Godwin, same as the old Godwin.
  • BTW, I carried while we were in Maine. I doubt 38 +p would do more than annoy a bear or moose, but
    I felt a little safer.

    Maine honors an Ohio carry license as long as it's an Ohio resident.

    Didn't realize PA now honors Ohio as well. Must've been fairly recent.
  • There’s an APP for that.

    CCW in the app store
  • MC Escher said:

    That’s not really a trend, that’s standard Marxist doctrine... “otherize” your opponent.

    Yet in all your demonizing, name-calling and conspiracy peddling, you don’t recognize that you’re describing your own behavior?
  • I’ve called you a lying, asshole Marxist.

    What’s the problem?
  • MC Escher said:

    ...
    What’s the problem?

    Lack of self-awareness. Cognitive dissonance.
  • vwtool said:

    MC Escher said:

    ...
    What’s the problem?

    Lack of self-awareness. Cognitive dissonance.
    Did you really just set yourself up for that?
  • This is getting extremely boring.
  • dgm said:

    This is getting extremely boring.

    That's my primary objection to it.  I can forgive Tool being approximate with facts and refusing to answer questions for obvious reasons, but this is predictable and mediocre.
  • dgm said:

    The whole "X is a terrorist organization" thing is tired and stupid. Nobody who says that deserves one second of consideration, unless the
    X is ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, etc. You know, an actual terrorist organization.

    As tough as it can be to watch DJT treat the english language like a mace he can't swing accurately, the rhetorical over-reach dems have to deal with is worse.  I hope dems like Brennan continue to accuse DJT of treason regularly, and call repubs terrorists.  Ordinary people discount them the way you have.  It's beautiful.
  • 2020 is going to be a repeat of 2016.
  • 2.FOH. said:

    2020 is going to be a repeat of 2016.

    2020 is going to be a repeat of 1984.


    FIFY
  • vwtool said:

    MC Escher said:

    ...
    What’s the problem?

    Lack of self-awareness. Cognitive dissonance.
    That's good. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

    Unfortunately, I am unaware of any 12-Step meetings for nippleheads.
  • dgm said:

    This is getting extremely boring.




    Yet it’s the m.o. of the forum and drives away new blood.
  • edited July 19
    vwtool said:

    Yet it’s the m.o. of the forum and drives away new blood.

    The conversations you're not a part of, are fine.  Its the clear effort your putting into being a dope that's made these exchanges dull.  You're not even trying to argue your position well.
  • vwtool said:

    dgm said:

    This is getting extremely boring.




    Yet it’s the m.o. of the forum and drives away new blood.
    You have difficulty making and operating on individual, specific conclusions.  Your oblivious insistence on disagreeing without an articulated is not the ordinary pattern here.  The idea that the method of people who write here drives away "new blood" is contradicted by your years long fascination with this group.

    You'd get a better reception by being smart, honest or interesting.  Pick one and give it a try.
  • vwtool said:

    dgm said:

    This is getting extremely boring.




    Yet it’s the m.o. of the forum and drives away new blood.
    No, just you.
  • nbody said:


    vwtool said:

    dgm said:

    This is getting extremely boring.




    Yet it’s the m.o. of the forum and drives away new blood.
    You have difficulty making and operating on individual, specific conclusions.  Your oblivious insistence on disagreeing without an articulated is not the ordinary pattern here.  The idea that the method of people who write here drives away "new blood" is contradicted by your years long fascination with this group.

    You'd get a better reception by being smart, honest or interesting.  Pick one and give it a try.

    That presumes that he is either smart, honest or interesting. I believe you lawyerly types call that "Assuming facts not in evidence".

    Perhaps he is capable of faking it... ?
  • edited July 20
    Slap said:

    ...The conversations you're not a part of, are fine.

    They don't really qualify as "conversation," though, do they? There's simply not enough diversity of thought or actual curiosity here for that word to apply. It's more like the short-hand grunting around the breakfast table that passes between couples who know each other's views a thousand times over, already: A quick post, some murmurs of assent, perhaps a few insider jokes, then it peters out. 

    Lather, rinse, repeat. 
  • MC Escher said:

    ...No, just you.




    The m.o. is "otherizing" your opponents. It's the lifeblood of this forum. It's nearly impossible to take part in a conversation here without being fluent in the "otherization," in fact, as I pointed out to dgm recently with his "cloward-piven" post.
  • edited July 20
    nbody said:

    ...You'd get a better reception by being smart, honest or interesting.  Pick one and give it a try.

    Here's some honesty for you: I know you don't hold Trump in much esteem, but you're quite willing to let him wreak havoc just to get the SCJ's you prefer. You're like a kid who knows mom's new boyfriend is beating her; that he drives drunk and wrecks the family car; that he's ruined her credit...

    ...But he did buy you that cool new bicycle, didn't he.

    That seems to be the extent of both your morality and your patriotism.
  • vwtool said:

    Slap said:

    ...The conversations you're not a part of, are fine.

    They don't really qualify as "conversation," though, do they?



    A writer who doesn't understand the defense of necessity and steadfastly refuses to grapple with it rather than present a competent argument isn't qualified to assess the quality of other peoples' conversations.  That DGM used a term unfamiliar to you isn't a measure of a conversation.


    Calling a civil rights organization a "terrorist organization" and concealing a political agenda because it will be unaccepatable even amongst NY democrats illustrates the problem faced by a democrat party with an energetic minority with contempt for most of the party itself.
  • nbody said:

    ...A writer who doesn't understand the defense of necessity...

    I simply reject that it applies here, or that it explains the actions of this administration.
    nbody said:

    ...Calling a civil rights organization a "terrorist organization"...

    That's not helpful language to use if you're trying to maintain a dialog, as its use all but guarantees the dialog will stop.

    Note that I have, in part, agreed with you here.
  • edited July 20
    vwtool said:

    I simply reject that it applies here...

    That's the problem. Despite having been provided with ample, clear explanations for why it does apply, you simply reject it, with no rationale, no explanation for why it might not apply. There is a reasoning process for determining whether the defense of necessity applies in a particular case. That process involves figuring out what the possible alternatives are, and which is the most moral or which possible choices involve greater harms. You've refused to engage in that process, despite its transparency, to stick with your "simple" rejection. That's not a good faith participation in the discussion. Its intentionally dopey in a way that's so persistent, that any kind of ignorance that might have excused your density just isn't plausible.
    vwtool said:

    There's simply not enough diversity of thought or actual curiosity here for that word to apply.

    You can't add to the diversity of thought here, if your posts are conspicuously thoughtless.
  • vwtool said:

    nbody said:

    ...A writer who doesn't understand the defense of necessity...

    I simply reject that it applies here, ...



    That is incorrect. You may not understand that you are incorrect. Slap's educational efforts may have been wasted.

    That you've refused to converse about it betrays the inauthentic quality of your complaints about lack of conversation.
    vwtool said:



    nbody said:

    ...Calling a civil rights organization a "terrorist organization"...

    That's not helpful language to use if you're trying to maintain a dialog, as its use all but guarantees the dialog will stop.

    Note that I have, in part, agreed with you here.



    Why is it important to note that you believe you've agreed with me?

    "Dialogue" isn't a goal in itself. The use of the terms tells a reader or listener something about the writer or speaker. I would encourage them to continue to use those terms if they think the terms are fairly descriptive. If a fair description of their position is alienating to voters, so much the better.
  • vwtool said:

    That's not helpful language to use if you're trying to maintain a dialog, as its use all but guarantees the dialog will stop.

    That's part of why I brought it up.  Part of my effort of engaging with you and with the dopes repeating the "NRA is a terrorist org" mantra, is to partially mimic or learn from Jordan Peterson, who seems to have an abundant faith in the ability of his students to escape Leftist indoctrination.

    Despite the lack of diversity of thought you claim to perceive here, the possibility that someone will think of a way to get through some obstinately dim ideas, that I or someone else might not have considered on our own, isn't remote.  One of the reasons Zuk is held in high esteem is his ability to construct and phrase an argument that can sometimes reach even the most obstinate opponent, sometimes even if they're barely bright enough to understand the argument.  That and the humor.

    I'm thinking of ridiculing the next "NRA is a turrurist org" post I see with:  "This is true, the NRA has been terrorizing tyrants and criminals since 1871."
Sign In or Register to comment.