jakee

I think it's more like, no-one knows what's going to happen when they start firing machine guns out of a hotel window into a music festival crowd, because no-one who wants to do it has ever done it before. He doesn't know how long it's going to take for the police to find him, he doesn't know how long it's going to take for the crowd to disperse, he doesn't know if he's going to get hit by a crippling wave of emotion as the reality of what he's doing sets in halfway through the massacre. How could you know? So, since it was obviously easy enough for him to bring them in, why wouldn't he stock up enough guns and ammunition for his 'best case' scenario, while being aware that he probably wouldn't end up using all of them. Like the guy at the all you can eat buffet who loads up four plates before suddenly needing to barf halfway through the second one. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Agreed This one has yet to pass the smell test Ron: yes, there are a lot of characteristics of the JFK murder popping up. This one's attracting the sickos, the whackjobs and the conspiracy nuts as well. Marc: What is wrong with your 'smell test'? What do you think didn't happen as stated? What do you think might have happened instead? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Because the easy targets had gone? Because he was tired or overwhelmed? Because he felt he'd made his point? Because he thought the police were about to burst in and he needed to kill himself before that happened? For all the same reasons that almost all mass shooters still have a lot of weaponry left when they die? Because the left wants to ban guns that are particularly suitable for mass shooting? Like, double d'uh Because if he waited until they were in the room they may have prevented him from killing himself. He obviously wanted to make sure that didn't happen. Because that's what he used. You think it would be more normal for the media to focus on weapons that he didn't use? Why does there need to be a why? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You get that's a list of 3 democrats and 3 republicans all equally roasted, right? Seems an odd way to support the idea that Weinstein is getting a pass because he's a democrat. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

A) No they wouldn't. B) President Trump is President. No-one voted for Harvey Weinstein. He doesn't hold an elected or appointed office. There aren't any Harvey Weinstein supporters who now have to weigh up support for his public policy agenda with contempt for his private behaviour, because he doesn't have a public policy agenda and he isn't asking for your support. There is a fundamental difference between a political donor and a politician. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Expensive and restrictive on something that has to happen for people to be able to function in modern society. Obviously the status quo is extremely powerful, but if your best argument is that the 2nd amendment exists you kinda automatically lose all the other arguments. What about justifying the second amendment in the modern world? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I don't think there is any way to make a faithful live action movie of a PKD book! I haven't read much of his work, and this might be controversial, but I see him as an author who had phenomenal ideas but wasn't any good at narrative. Seems like every book of his I've read the protagonist was simply along for the ride and didn't even care if he lived or died. Tough to make a movie out of that. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So look at it this way - it's difficult to put further restrictions on the use of vehicles because modern society is fundamentally built around them. Without vehicles most people can't go to work, to school, to the supermarket, to the beach, to the hills, to visit their family, to the DZ etc. etc. It's difficult to put further restrictions on guns because it was once written down that everyone should be able to have guns. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

You should probably clarify whether you mean some people or some groups. 'Cos that's going to make a big difference in the reactions you get. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

They aren't different? Both are legal? http://www.snopes.com/business/money/10000.asp Doesn't stop it from being stolen by 'the man' though. With the burden of proof on you to get it back. Which, tbh, is a totally seperate issue. Fucked up, for sure! But unrelated. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Probably because that's how any normal english speaking person would have interpreted your initial statement. If you want to argue semantics, please start by being more precise in your choice of words. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Then your recollection is wrong. Yes, the context of a man who has settled sexual assault lawsuits, and currently faces multiple additional accusations of sexual assault, talking about how he does sexually assault women and gets away with it because he's famous. But don't worry Marc, this can still come out ok for you - you can just claim that your Republican hero got away with it for so long because until a few years ago everyone thought he was still a democrat Do you want to have an ideagasm?

the gov does not define political correctness today the left and it's compliant media does! Nope, sounds like you're trying to define political correctness, and funnily enough your definition doesn't include behaviour that the current holders of political power deem to be correct. Well that just wont wash. The right and its lapdog networks and fake news cheerleaders are putting huge pressure on the NFL to act in a PC fashion, and you and your fellow snowflakes are just loving it. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Being a politically correct wimp means you kneel. Haha, right. Obviously the term 'Politically correct' only applies to values that the left side of the political spectrum tries to pressure you into observing. Wimpy things like acting with equal respect and dignity to all people, regardless of race or gender. Like they deserve it? What a bunch of PC pussies. The values the right side of the political spectrum tries to pressure you into observing couldn't possibly be seen the same way! No, those are strong, manly, common sense values like acting with equal respect and dignity to a flag and a song. What kind of asshole wouldn't do that anyway? No, only an idiot woud use the term 'Political correctness' to describe the behavour that the current President and ruling political party demand that their citizens emulate. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Known by who? Allowed by who? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Yeah, so when we see the Cowboys' players stand up for the anthem because they're being forced to, we'll know that they really do respect it. Wait, what? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

That is funny! Because Luigi jumped for Icarus, and Icarus canopies were measured differently to everyone else. Like, what they said was 100 was actually a 90 (according to everyone else). So if, like with Icarus canopies, your wingsuit is 35 hypothetical square feet then cool, it's 35 hypothetical square feet Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has explicitly stated an intention to re-write the tax code in order to target a specific organisation which is acting counter to his personal view on what is Politically Correct. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Environmentalism is bad because some wealthy companies support it? Then climate sceptics must be so much worse! By the way, any evidence there of the spectaular greed and corruption? See, this is why everyone laughs at you when you link to Breitbart and claim it's reputable - they repost a story from somewhere else and add layer upon layer upon layer of unsubstantiated, batshit crazy editorialising, you don't bother reading the original story and simply assume that the batshit crazy stuff is a legit restatement of what was in it. And it almost never is. Hmm, a think tank that exists for the stated purpose of spreading biased, anti-AGW information? And they've reported to the ASA an ad campaign funded by pro-AGW organisations? Not a huge surprise, is it? Since you like to wait for all the facts* before jumping to a conclusion, don't you want to wait for the claim to actually be investigated by the ASA before deciding whether it means anything? * Just kidding. I know your standards don't apply to you. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

But how was he figuring 'hit probability'? Again, if it's based on military studies, I cannot imagine any military scenario that comes remotely close to having people as tightly packed together as they are in the middle of a big concert crowd. In that situation the more inaccurate the automatic weapon the better, because each bullet is damn near guaranteed to hit someone, and if each bullet is going somewhere new then each one will hit a different person. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I cannot imagine any military situation where there are remotely as many people packed into as small a space as at a big concert. Not even an infantry charge at the Somme would come close. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

If nothing else, when the executive branch of the federal government puts pressure on private businesses to fire employees for un-PC behaviour in taxpayer funded arenas.... then it starts to look a lot like a 1st Amendment issue even if it wasn't before. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Mandatory licensing with psychological screening as a component, as is common in many countries. You finished yet? I don't think that would have stopped Paddock. He was about as vanilla as they come, no police record, nothing. Agreed. And from what I've read, the very first presentation of a mental illness symptom was the time he shot ~600 people. Seems so. Of course there's a fallacy in the question of which laws would have stopped this shooting, in that it assumes laws must be 100% effective to be worthwhile. Well, if laws were 100% effective at crime prevention we wouldn't need prisons. But we still have laws and we still spend money on prisons even though we all know that some crime will continue anyway. So at the extreme you could say ban all semi-automatic rifles. Then they say "but he could still have bought them illegally and done the same thing!" but it misses the point. The question is how much more difficult would it have been for a vanilla middle class suburbanite to buy that many guns and that much ammo on the black market, and how much less likely would it have been for him to do what he did, as destructively as he did it. How much more difficult and less likely would it make it for the next guy to go through with it, and the next, and the next? Everyone's going to have their own cost/benefit analysis on that, or any other proposal, but benefit has to be looked at in terms of probabilities, not absolutes. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Then Mike Pence must have been mind reading when he said that the players were disrespecting soldiers. Do you think Mike Pence can read minds? No? Ok then, so he didn't know that the players were disrespecting soldiers, so he was trying to score political points by mentioning them, so my point still stands. When it comes to logic you're like the guy who brought a spoon to a gunfight. It is fun to watch you back peddle...... A back pedal would involve me backing away from or diluting my original point. Now, since I am still saying that Mike Pence disrespected soldiers by using them in a cynical political stunt... what exactly have I backed away from? I maintain that my original post is 100% correct. Pence disrespected the military. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Then Mike Pence must have been mind reading when he said that the players were disrespecting soldiers. Do you think Mike Pence can read minds? No? Ok then, so he didn't know that the players were disrespecting soldiers, so he was trying to score political points by mentioning them, so my point still stands. When it comes to logic you're like the guy who brought a spoon to a gunfight. Do you want to have an ideagasm?