villakram

The Biden/Dem kabuki theatre in full flow. It's Manchins fault thought, honest.

Enjoy your neo-lib policies from the neo-lib politicians. What a surprise.

That was a truly epic card. Was there and there was maybe 30s of cat calling during the early Randy Costa fight when he boneheadedly decided to grapple. His girl was behind us and the groan she let out when he did that was so telling. Kept pulling loudly for her man after though, star.

Tua/Sugar and Pena stole the show. Security had to physically push/escort Tua out of the arena to stop him taking beer form fans, hilarious. Great main card fight with a hell for leather first round in the main event. Great to see Olivera finally getting some recognition.

2 hours ago, Vancvillan said:

Thanks for your thoughts.

Let me start by saying I agree with everything except the bit in bold. It's worth mentioning that I was born in the UK and lived there (mostly) until I was 26, so I grew up in that culture. I now live in Canada, where firearm possession is much more common, but I'd still say the majority of Canadians again agree with your thoughts above too (again, excluding the bit in bold).

Why does anyone need a firearm? The most common answer here would be hunting. In the UK that means a bunch of dukes in red coats, sat on horses chasing a fox.  In Canada, 90% of the country is wild public lands. I get why hunting doesn't happen in England - it's because there is nowhere to actually hunt.

Two counterpoints usually come up at this point:

1. "Why hunt? Why not buy your meat from the supermarket / butcher, or go vegan if you care that much?" I can go into more detail if you like, but I've done a fair bit of research on farming a slaughter houses, and after spending a couple of years living on a low meat diet and considering veganism, I reached a point where I realised that even a plant-based diet inflicts a lot of suffering on the environment,  animals, and their habitat. Hunting, combined with meat from a regenerative agriculture farm is the best I felt I could do in my circumstance. For others the best they can do is go vegan. Some people don't think about it at all - and that's their choice and I'm fine with that.

2. "Why use firearms? That's not fair." The short answer is efficacy. Its important to me to have the best chance for a clean and ethical kill, and a 30 calibre bullet is the best tool for that job on large game.

I can go further into any of the above and please understand this is a place I came to that I felt was the best I could do in the environment I live in - everyone makes their own choices and that won't hurt my feelings if they're very different. It's not the easiest choice either - hunting is hard and the learning curve was steeper than anything else I've ever done.

Hopefully that explains why I own firearms, and given that I have two small children why I'm so invested in laws around acquisition, possession and storage.

As a final note - throwing around untrue info can lead to bad public policy. The Canadian government banned the AR-15 two years ago, and is implementing a $750m buy-back plan. Great news, right? Except the law was designed to pander to people who don't understand anything about firearms. It banned the AR-15 (and others) by name rather than action and calibre - meaning that you can still buy a semi-automatic rifle that shoots 223 Rem with a five shot magazine (by far the most common AR-15 set up), as long as it's not called "AR-15". People who don't own guns cheered - but it's just a waste of time and money. Why not ban all centrefire semi-automatic rifles? Answer - because it's a riskier political move. But I say do something with conviction, not rhetoric, and then let the people decide come election time.

It'd be like introducing a low carbon bill that bans the Ram Pickup truck (and spends public money buying them back) but not the Grand Cherokee or Durango, which use the same 5.7 Hemi engine. Ban all non-commercial vehicles over a certain displacement and everyone knows where they stand - whether you agree with it or not is a matter for the polls.

If someone wants to ban all guns that's fine with me - as long as they understand the ramifications and do it with conviction.

To add to this, in the US one can ask a general/average gun owner and they would have little problem with large weapons that are not non-cartridge vanilla rifles or shotguns being banned.

Handguns are a different discussion (and the most problematic thing imho), as they are easy to bring into a personal safety/emotive discussion, e.g., I believe Chicago is up to ~4000 shooting incidents so far this year and are on track for record homicides too. The year 2020 had a very high number of homicides nationally and a record in recent decades, though with population growth, the percentage growth may not have been so drastic. During the large scale "mostly peaceful" protests last year, there were record numbers of applications for pistol background checks from new applicants. 

23 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think we're talking past each other a bit. I agree with you that after shooting the first victim, he was an active shooter. I clearly caused some confusion by using the phrase 'under the impression' - I don't think they were mistaken, all I mean is, at that point the crowd realised somebody had been shot, realised it was the small kid with the large gun who did it, and chased him. They didn't just attack him out of nowhere, they were clearly trying to take the gun off him. That was my point in response to the other poster adding 'in self defence' to my previous post (which was completely unnecessary) - that 'self defence' is a tricky concept, beyond the narrow legal question; Rittenhouse was found to have acted in self-defence because in each case he was being chased, struck or had a gun pointed at him, but there's also a defence of the people around us when someone poses (proven) lethal danger as well. It seems ironic to me that some of those who are gloating about the verdict would probably, if the situation were not politicised, be cheering people taking it into their own hands to stop an active shooter. That doesn't mean I agree they should have done so, or with the way they tried to do it. 

As to the first shooting, it has been ruled self-defence by the court. He was being chased; a bag of groceries was thrown at him; shots were fired in the air; the first victim (who appeared very aggro) tried to wrestle the gun off him. 

My opinion is that there are no heroes in this story. 

One of the things lost in this is the role of the local government. They essentially stood down the police, such that small business were having to camp out in their businesses overnight with their own guns to protect their livelihood, as so many buildings were being burned/looted. This happened for long enough, that out of state militia/patriot types volunteered to come and assist. Hence, Mr. Rittenhouse.

The motivations of the other chaps could be described as BLM protesting, but rioting also works. Again, had the police been deployed to enforce the law, these lads would have been at home acting like clowns in moms basement.

Hopefully, local electorates will take note in coming years. 

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

The way America thinks about firearms is utterly insane to people from the UK, or I'd guess most countries. 

@Vancvillan the differentiation between automatic and semi-automatic guns and the way that differentiation is treated by the law and indeed by people who live under that law is so alien to us that I can understand how to you our reactions seem to lack objectivity, personally I don't think they do.

For us, it translates to the idea that there's a social feeling in the US that the bloke wandering around a shopping centre waving a six inch knife is a perfectly acceptable and sensible citizen, but the bloke waving the eight inch knife is a dangerous psycho that needs to be apprehended immediately. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

in the UK, the moment Rittenhouse takes possession of a gun; whether that's a revolver, an automatic pistol, a rifle, a semi-automatic rifle, an automatic rifle, a machine gun or a personal anti-tank rocket launcher, he's a criminal liable for a minimum sentence of three to five years. I like that. It's good sensible law making. It means that it's illegal to possess a machine that's purpose is killing people, it's not complicated logic.

Personal gun ownership, where a person gets to keep a machine designed for killing things in their house or car is an horrendous idea in a modern society. Open carry is madness. You get a sterner punishment in some US states for crossing the road in the wrong place than you do for carrying a machine designed to kill things in open sight - objectively it's almost impossible to justify that.

America encourages a debate around different types of gun ownership, different regulation on gun ownership and different rules on storage and transportation - it's a debate designed to obfuscate the idea that there is no justification for a citizen of a free democratic country to have a firearm in their individual possession - it's a machine designed to kill things, that's what it does, no one should have that.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the current covid "fascism"  is only entrenching and re-enforcing the 2A freedom against tyranny argument for the gun folks and anyone who is sympathetic to them. 

No chance of change in the short to medium term.

On 20/11/2021 at 17:09, chrisp65 said:

Was it freed or already free and now exonerated?

I caught a bit of it on the news but didn’t get around to following it up.

Fascinating few years of U.S. history around that time.

Yup, exonerated. Good spot.

Fascinating feels like a good description, yet one that totally underwhelms on the actual happenings, with Hoover doing all sorts at FBI, and the red scare implanted in the nations mind.

9 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

One of the very few times gun laws were tightened up, was when the Black Panther movement started using the law in the same way others were. Keeping it legal but making it obvious they could defend themselves with lethal force.

 

In a ‘normal’ society it would be ridiculous to suggest that perhaps that exercise needs to be revisited to see if it could be brought up to date.

Worth pointing out the remaining living "Killer" of Malcom X, now in his 80s was freed this week. FBI etc. involved in all sorts of shady things during that investigation trial. Who knows what they were doing in the lead up to the murder, his and all the other black leadership exterminated during this period.

Clean sheet, lovely. 

More of that please.

4 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

BBBB surely?

Depends on what that last B stands for...

The house have finally gotten around to passing the neo-lib version of the BBB bill. Let the senate fun and games begin.

4 hours ago, sidcow said:

To be fair most of those things are on the list because they could easily have been foreseeable even in 1997.  Indeed many of them were showing their heads even then. 

The pandemic one is pretty prophetic but even then it's been on record for many years that the world was well overdue a major pandemic. 

Exactly, e.g., loads of Europeans (Old Empires) were worried about American economic hegemony long before the calendar struck 1900 A.D.

Bosnia is the Balkans. 

American geography strikes again... or perhaps you've been reading some of the excellent WWI books released in recent years and become a little over enthusiastic.

The new Bond is rubbish. 

Even the Hot Shots folks didn't take the piss out of Commando this much.

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Yes, I think it's exactly that. Trump ran behind republican congressional candidates in most races last year, he was a big drag on the ticket. He certainly doesn't seem to have done anything in his post-presidential career to suggest he's considering moderating to appeal to the median voter. Him running again is therefore Democrats' best chance at this stage. 

Maybe... but if the economy keeps this up for too much longer, then the disaffection will stain the dems well into the 2024 election cycle. Biden doesn't have a lot of control over things here, but much as Covid did for Trump, this long overdue inflation impulse may do for Biden/Harris. 

6 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Yes, though I should also stress there's a difference here between what I know the Democrats should say and do about fuel prices and inflation on the one hand, and what I personally think on the other. I mean, *my* experience of people bellyaching about fuel prices has mostly not been the sort of poor person who is struggling to afford a cup of coffee, and more suburban clearings in the woods who spent their lockdown cash on a Chelsea tractor. 

Take a bow sir, epic!

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

He declared that the people Rittenhouse killed couldn't be referred to as victims but should be referred to as looters and rioters. Sounds like a Fox News host, not a judge.

What's your opinion on the nice chap that had his arm severed, who admitted during the trial to having a gun in his hand, and this after he attacked Rittenhouse... something backed by fresh video angles of the incident I might add.

This is much murkier than the simple picture blasted all over the media at the time of the incident.

4 hours ago, nick76 said:

I’m not sure I understand, it’s probably the only reasonable thing to do.  To do nothing was far worse and would see 1/6 basically impotent.  I know Bannon still won’t cooperate after he comes out of jail and yes he’ll use it to shout “deep state” and he stood up to them and yes might help with midterms but not much else Dems could do.

They should have held this over him, plenty of precedent for that, but now they have given him and that political movement the fight they want.

He was back on TV this evening, loving it.

48 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Really good watch, that is. Houllier though, at 1:07:30 what a prick. 

The way he shafted Fowler out of pool... no idea how he is held in such high regard.

McAllister is a great add. Hopefully, we can get a bit of luck the first few weeks and really get to see what these lads can do. 

Solid appointment, somewhat of a pity though as the Lampard car crash would have been more entertaining.

14 minutes ago, ciggiesnbeer said:

More seriously, very good interview. Pretty much nailed every point I wanted him to.


Training session is great! Trezza spotted!!!!
Cant wait to see us play! 

Calm down, calm down.

8 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's possible that the large-majority white electorate thinks there's *too much* race war under them.

But one of the posts in that thread (not quoted above) suggests a simpler, bigger explanation IMO: 29% rate the economy as excellent or good; 70% as not so good or poor. I think gas (petrol) prices and inflation are a bigger issue than anything to do with race one way or the other.

Exactly, e.g., a cup of lukewarm/burnt coffee has risen by 20-30c in the last 2 months. I can list a zillion other everyday things. Of course, such small things never impact those in congress, but absolutely hammers the lower & middle classes.

4 hours ago, sne said:

https://apnews.com/article/steve-bannon-donald-trump-mark-meadows-congress-subpoenas-5bd5638acb5d93bd8478f57f2b177ded

Not a smart move by the Dems.

The Streisand effect.

On 12/11/2021 at 17:39, il_serpente said:

Most of the constraints that placed on domestic policy were a result of Trump being so obsessed with it that he had little energy for anything else.  If he'd really been focused on getting infrastructure done he could easily have made it happen, but it would have taken some work and engagement on his part.   He probably could have gotten way more House Democrats on board than than the number of Republicans who supported this bill if he'd been willing to work for it.  Instead, he just wanted to be able to tell people to get it done and have it magically happen so he could take credit for it.   It's an example of his naivete about how the presidency and US government work.  He thought he would be CEO and could tell people to do stuff and it would happen like in his company.

Now he and his clown posse are calling fellow Republicans traitors for passing legislation that addresses an issue the bulk of Americans, including politicians of all stripes, agree is greatly needed, simply because it might make Biden look good and him look bad in comparison.

It doesn't address half of what is needed. Less than half of the bill is for actual infrastructure and enough of that is already pork. The rest is politics.

He couldn't get it done as the Dems went all republican and made sure they would not vote for any such legislative victory from Trump, which was completely fair given republican behavior towards Obama. The congress was against Trump, e.g., Mitch can't stand him. Hence, the only thing they could get done was tax cuts for the wealthy.

Neo-lib policy objective #1.

16 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Err,, no. They are actually putting that life in danger.  There is a reasonably high chance of mother and baby dying of they contract Covid unvaccinated.  Much much higher than any other known danger. 

Please show the data to back that statement up.

We have almost no idea how these medicines interact with human biology that is changing so rapidly as that in a child, e.g., it will take us 10-25 years to determine if there was some systematic IQ (for example) or other effect. We have no idea (the same applies with covid of course). We do know that the covid risk to children is tiny, far less risky than the flu for example. This is not a simple thing, and to condemn this woman for giving reasonable advice is such an exemplar of so much that is worrying about the current time.