last memorable thing I saw of Koppel he was trashing Hannity to his face, saying he was dangerous to America because he amassed a following that was more interested in ideology than fact.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Media celebrities, making a gigantic profit off of dividing the American public, have so much to be proud of, don't they? They all just fan the flames, throw logs, then gas, and make it burn as hot as possible. Keep that money rolling in.
"follow the law" sounds so easy. Maybe need you need to explain this to the District courts and other levels of court who are having trouble nailing it.
that wouldn't be far from my thinking as well, except I don't think he is dangerous.
I used to like to listen to Rush when he was dissecting the liberal mindset because he had them so well pegged...otherwise he could be hit or miss on specific issues so I might listen to him and then I might not.
But Hannity I learned long ago to tune out completely because he was basically just a bot...and even if I agreed with him on some of his dogma, I wanted to jump through the radio and choke him when he was engaged with someone who was actually presenting a good question or point, because he would never let them finish. He would just trample right on top of them with the same old same old and never give them a chance. Time after time I'd be thinking 'hey, this should be good' only to have him put the immediate kibosh on what could or should have been healthy debate. Who needs that? Have a discussion Get some back and forth going if you think your way of seeing things is valid and give the other guy voice. That's how you win converts, by risking losing the committed. Be more like William F. Buckley.
He has a large following so the only conclusion I can draw is that those followers are only interested in hearing that same old same old repeated endlessly. They are entrenched. But instead of that being dangerous, I think that's a good thing when it's time to vote, given how divisive things have gotten.
Of course you can argue that that entrenchment is what is causing the divide and that might be true to some extent, but there is entrenchment on both sides. It's a lot like the first WW.
Last edited:
I guess for some people, fireworks just doesn't do it anymore.
Highland Park parade suspect legally purchased multiple weapons, official says
The Illinois city banned assault weapons nearly a decade ago, a move that went all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately survived legal challenges.
www.nbcnews.com
"Highland Park has been a leader in the fight against gun violence. Nearly a decade ago, Rotering led an effort in the Chicago suburb to ban assault weapons — a move that was challenged and ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court."
"In June 2013, Highland Park officials passed an ordinance banning AR-15s and AK-47s after a packed meeting that overflowed from the City Council chamber, the Chicago Tribune reported at the time."
Well, I wouldn't need to explain anything as I feel pretty certain that their opinions speak for themselves. But, that is why we have the appeal's process so that the supreme's can ultimately set forth the standard. As far as the variance amongst the District Courts and the various Circuits, I feel certain that the vast majority of decisions that are at conflict and have been overruled by the supreme's originally came from judges appointed by O, Clinton, Joey, and world order Bushes. When you see cases getting filed and ruled upon with regard to government decisions, it's almost never a coincidence as to the district/circuit in which the case was filed and the plaintiff's know the ruling tendencies.
Honest question. With all the handwringing over women's rights and abortion access and how the Supreme Court got it so wrong, you'd think it would be very easy for virtually anyone to point out for me the wording in the constitution that establishes this "right" that has so wrongly been removed. Can you? I was raised in a household and remain pro-choice in my views. But I'll be damned if I can point out where this right exists in and is protected by the constitution. The law is the law. Legislate it in the legislature, not a court.
It will come down some, but I doubt it will be a significant amount anytime soon. Gas in the summer is always more expensive because of the switch in blends and because of demand being higher. Don't expect $2 gas anytime soon.
I don't expect that at all. I expect it will be about $3.65, maybe lower. It was $3.89 before the price dropped nearly 10% today. That's better than $4.50
Still well over $4 here. Most stations are around $4.45 in my area. The national average is $4.80.
I'm lucky, I guess! The price of crude oil dropped nearly 10%, in a single day... I guess you can choose to still be pessimistic about that.
Very lucky. The average price in SC is $4.29. You must have some very generous gas station owners in your area.
Ah, so you're saying that more cities need to be like Highland Park so he can't just travel to another town to get his assault rifle to murder innocent people.Highland Park parade suspect legally purchased multiple weapons, official says
The Illinois city banned assault weapons nearly a decade ago, a move that went all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately survived legal challenges.
"Highland Park has been a leader in the fight against gun violence. Nearly a decade ago, Rotering led an effort in the Chicago suburb to ban assault weapons — a move that was challenged and ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court."
"In June 2013, Highland Park officials passed an ordinance banning AR-15s and AK-47s after a packed meeting that overflowed from the City Council chamber, the Chicago Tribune reported at the time."
Good call man, great poast. Appreciate your fight against guns.
It's not $4.29 in Pickens, Anderson or Oconee county anywhere, right now. And, my local TD Express was at $3.94 on Saturday.
It has fallen by 8% at least, today. That means a lower price this week.
have they released the type of weapon or weapons used? I know they can't have said it was an AR-15 because @blazers would already be on that like flies on a dead thing that flies would be on.Highland Park parade suspect legally purchased multiple weapons, official says
The Illinois city banned assault weapons nearly a decade ago, a move that went all the way to the Supreme Court and ultimately survived legal challenges.
"Highland Park has been a leader in the fight against gun violence. Nearly a decade ago, Rotering led an effort in the Chicago suburb to ban assault weapons — a move that was challenged and ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court."
"In June 2013, Highland Park officials passed an ordinance banning AR-15s and AK-47s after a packed meeting that overflowed from the City Council chamber, the Chicago Tribune reported at the time."
The sound in the one video I saw that had sound, was of firing that seemed too rapid for individual trigger pulls.
I can't take all the credit for the outstanding post.. NBC did the legwork.
So is there any place in the United States that it is legal to buy cocaine? I know Oregon or Washington would probably be the first to allow it.
Someone who was in the military said that by the sound of the shots it sounds just like an AK-47. No clue how reliable this guy is.
Yeah, just like the right to a liver or heart transplant, it’s just not there….
So you're saying if we had an AK ban, no one would ever use one again? And if those were never used again, no one would use another weapon to kill someone?
So you’re saying that since we can’t ban every single weapon then we shouldn’t ban the super deadly ones that all these terrorists use in mass shootings?
That logic is special.
We have banned a lot of things and it almost never works. It just creates a black market. Personally, I think it's better to try to solve the problem. That's my logic. The fact you think banning a specific weapon will help is not logical at all.
Probably, but doubtful anyone is going to celebrate gas that cost $4.19 a gallon.
Not so many what, shootings? The vast majority of shootings don't involve assault rifles. Maybe you mean less victims per shooting? I guess that's possible, but unlikely since those weapons aren't the most effective to begin with. I think it's better to come up with solutions to the problem instead of something that can give people the warm and fuzzies. The most recent bill congress passed is a good start. That could actually make a difference.
Not a specific weapon, a specific kind of weapon. It’s done all the time, tanks, nukes, etc, etc,
I think everybody on both sides want the number killed to go down and the ease in killing them.
Similar threads
