Patty16

Well said, the far right does believe in authoritarianism is that they tend to believe a source they view as legit (church or FNC) and vehemently reject any idea in conflict. It's why so many republicans publicly say they reject climate change is even happening, bc their source of info says it's not, so 99% of the world believing the hard science otherwise doesn't register with them. Repubs have always impressed with their cohesiveness on issues and willingness to put party first. Dems are all over the place.

Ahhhh ok i see what you mean. And yes the research shows that. My point (which may have not been clear) was that consumers of that channel hear things that aren't reality on factual issues. Like race in America, Fox News has had countless guests on regarding race and all taking the side of whites and insinuation that it's all the blacks fault. But every piece of evidence shows us that blacks don't commit more crime. It's like the multple studies showing thier viewers are the least informed and believe things that aren't true. I see it as a little different than watching a channel that agrees with your political views (eg: should the US do this or that). Fox News routinely tells its viewers things that are demonstrably false but that agree with a certain ideology, thereby cementing the viewer's own beliefs regardless of the world around them. Without hijacking the thread on that point it's one of the reasons why that belief persists in the very conservative circles.

In what way? I really don't buy into the both sides do it meme way too rampant in all media that comports to be neutral.

I was trying to put together my thoughts on Legwand but you nailed it.

Right but as Eleven laid out I don't think there's irreparable harm, and i don't think he has a likelihood of success on the merits, it's too high of a burden.

I mean the statistics arent even close yet uneducated and racially insulated people keep making these silly comments that they "know" are true and if blacks would just straighten up they would be fine.. The whole point is they do not commit more crime but are subjected to harsher treatment by police and get astronomically harsher prison sentences. It's really what I call the Fox News delusion, tell people what they already believe, and they'll keep on believing it and disregard reality.

Its both but not for the prelim injunction. Brady will attempt to show that the process was a sham- meaning totally unfair- He will also argue "law of the shop" which is a legal premise used when reviewing arbitration decision made under CBA's. This means that even with the plain language of the CBA, that Goodell acted outside what he had always done in the past, violating custom and practice of the unspoken rules everyone was operating under. You see a little bit of this in some of Brady's people's statements, that hey Goodell was acting totally unfair and was making it up as he goes so it's not under CBA or law of shop. Thus Brady had no way to defend himself. I still think it's a large uphill battle for him to have a court overturn. This isn't like the Peterson case at all. And as I told the guy who spoke on GR this morning---- he actually got all that stuff from me---- it's not about the evidence, it's not about him destroying his phone--- as far as the lawsuit is concerned.

Wow man, yea they are sometimes called rascists because blacks don't commit more crime. 4 million more white people were arrested that blacks in that chart. They were also arrested more for all violent crime than blacks. But yea, keep on believing that the system isnt slanted, and blacks are just more crime-y. At some point white people will need to have some sort of self awareness........... https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf It's because white people THINK blacks commit more crimes, and blacks are much more likely to receive a harsher sentence. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/charles-blow-crime-bias-and-statistics.html?_r=0

The establishment is turning on him because they fear him getting crushed in the general. The GOP is master of discilpline in not really allowing insurgent candidates to get ahead. They waited until he said something dumb and the sharks are circling. The survival of his candidacy really depends on the joe six pack vote that loves him for immigration, and for his sake there's not too much overlap with pissed off vets.

Yea if that's the law, the judge is bound by it. I've seen too many personal opinions by judges get in the way of the application of clear law (not interpretation of it) as most recently by gay marriage licensing and judge's and clerks' refusal to fulfill their duty. back to guns and carry permits, take a look at the number of permits issued by state, then control for population and you see my point. People is the south carry guns in higher rates than elsewhere. http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf

Is for just a permit or concealed carry? It was my understanding they were two separate things (maybe not?)

Nope, I've lived down here for many years now, and it's not uncommon. There's a large John Wayne-ish mentality here where if you cross me ill show you who's boss. If you live in NY, which I believe you do, concealed carry is far more difficult to get, down here most states require very little to carry a handgun. So you have a diff armed population .

Part of that, I think, has been the cost of elections, people have to fund raise constantly off of fear and demagoguery -- can you believe what the other guy is doing or support!!! give me money and help fight back! --- then while in office they do nothing because they really don't support such a crazy position. That and the rise of the internet has allowed people to only hear what they agree with, and never actually learn the whole issue. I will say, without addressing the merits of either party's positions, that Dems are far more disorganzied as a party than the GOP. In the GOP, if you want to be a good soldier there is very little room for your own ideas. Partly why the religious flock to them, trust in leadership and authority. fall in line or get out. Not really hyperbole, I was sitting at an airport in the South when i overheard a guy, who is a self-described rich guy with a gun permit tell his dinner partner about how he has to carry a gun because its so dangerous out there and criminals dont care. He then went on to tell how he'd be like Rambo if someone threatened him. One look at this guy and you could tell exercise was more dangerous than any criminal he might encounter. Anecdotal, yes. But I can't tell you how many people i come across with that mentality, it's just too dangerous to leave your house without a concealed weapon.

I would guess a very large majority, since those who support both of those in high numbers fall within one party.

Exactly. It's also like saying -- well I can drive 100mph just perfectly fine, why should I have a speed limit just because someone else doesn't know what they're doing OR i am a responsuible gun owner, why should i be regulated bc people are getting killed at rates 50x times higher than most other modern countries. Well, it's because too many people with guns aren't responsible. Govt and its rules and laws is for the greater good of the people. There needs to be a balancing act.

And the 2nd Amend is the only one in which non-legal people argue that it is absolute, ie you can't regulate guns. Even when we have a gun homicide rate in line with countries like Costa Rica, Phillpines, Panama, Nicaragua. Our gun homicide rate is over 50times higher than Canada's --- the main difference being rate of ownership being far lower there, about 6% according to rcmp. We refuse to change our laws based on a misguided understanding of the history of the 2Amend and we continue to be the only modern country to allow it's citizens to arm themselves and kill themselves at such a rate. It's not about "freedom" either, we have the most freedom of any of those countries yet we are the most resistant to change.

Isn't he one of the guys who had a beef with Kane? http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/evander-kane-missed-game-after-incident-with-byfuglien-reports-1.2946727 Sometimes i wonder about these GR guys, especially jeremy. Locker room chemistry is important, guys dont have to be bff's or all get along, but this wouldn't look good or be good for the room.

Thanks to dr4k for saving me a little time haha. Yes as I said it was NOT a political term, it was a gun term then was used by politicians then villianized by the NRA, which is an organization professional at misfinformation. In fact, they usually lobby against their members' wants and opinions on things, ie background checks, the membership of the NRA wants them, but the leadership, funded by makers, lobbies against them. As for the 2nd vs 9th, I would say no the 9th doesn't include the right to arms. There's been a ton of jurisprudence on this and one can't simply read into it any right one wants, since it would lead to basically nullifying the Amend. It's possible i could read the 9th to say i have the right to _____ fill in the blank, and unless that right was prohibitied by the Const. one could argue the state also cannot prohibit that conduct bc the 9th allows me to have any right i choose. As for the analogy with the 1st and the web, its similar but not the same as the 2nd comparison. The 1st, in part, covers speech, and clearly it was intended to allow the population to be able to speak their minds without fear of political or criminal consequences. That concept holds true even with new media. When considering the 2nd, it was, despite any nonsense to the contrary, designed to allow the states to keep militia, in a time period when the Fed govt had no real standing army or ability to protect it's borders. Also the British attempted to outlaw militias and prevent people from having any defense or ability to hunt. In that time period many people hunted for survival and those in the rural area faced threats from natives. Today, guns are absolutely no longer necessary for a militia, since the citizens can not in any real way protect themselves from the govt, and there is no native threat. The 2nd amend did not contemplate self defense or the right to guns that can carry out mass murder. Back then citizens weren't arming themselves with cannon for "self defense" It's a relatively recent concept. And as d4rk said, hand guns are simply not used effectively for self defense. in 2010, three times as many people were accidentally killed by guns than deaths in "justifiable" homicide. Said another way, gun kill 99% (230 out of 31,000) more people overall than the 0.007% that are used in self defense. We limit free speech, a far more sacred American right than guns, so why are we so unwilling to limit the 2nd Amend militia right? http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600 (230 self defense).

Well its not a political term, those who are ardent supports of gun rights say it is to back their position. There are more than a few gun manufacturers and sellers who sell under the term "assualt rifle". So it's clearly not a political term, it's a real life classification. The 2nd Amend is very outdated. It was written for militias and the ability for citizen soldiers to be able to keep their weapons and assemble for the defense of their communities from Indians etc. the 9th amendment was in no way meant to include gun ownership, since you wouldn't need the 2A then, the BOR has to be read as a whole. And for the majority of time that America has been in existence, SCOTUS never read that the 2A meant that anyone had a right to almost any weapon. It has really only been with the emergence and funding of the NRA that lawsuits have been crafted to have such a case heard and a new SCOTUS opinion rendered, which it was. Guns at the time were single shot muzzle loading, and they crafters never had to consider the things we do today such as assault rifles, or large clips.

It does not. Things like safety locks would have prevented Sandy Hook (he took his mom's gun which were just laying around) or Columbine where the guns were all purchased legally. As long as you have states with no regulation you have a problem. A crazy guy can drive to that state purchase a weapon legally and drive to wherever he wants to kill someone. We are the only modern country in the world that gets caught up in this debate, which is why we have more violent crime and gun deaths. It's the easy access to firearms that's at issue, and it's not moot. Guys dont always gravitate to soft areas, there have been multiple shooting military bases as well. And the counterargument that more guns would have stopped these doesn't hold water. Even in this particular instance, he killed four Marines with a blitz of shots, many of them are combat vets, they wouldn't have had time to run grab a weapon and return fire. They were cut down too fast.

That's not even close to official, and he qualified his remarks saying basically it was a guess based on his experience. He's on the damn committee and could have said there was intelligence supporting that, but all the reports are saying there's NO intelligence now supporting that notion. And saying "ISIS-inspired" is a mish mash of a phrase, basically saying there's no connection but I'm making one because I want to, and it gives him wiggle room later on. Again it's all politics. Soldiers killed by ISIS gets hiim way more political points than soldiers killed by crazy man with gun. He's an elected official put on that committee trying to push the ISIS connection for political reasons. It may turn out that's the case, but right now he's just tryign to drive the ISIS angle as a political football. He has been playing the ISIS terror cell in the US for weeks now, even before this, so it's no surprise he came out and said this. BTW there hasnt been any confirmed intelligence to back this up nor is he even saying this. He's just speculating.

No that was a politician speculating that it was, and he sits on the Homeland security committee, he did not say there was any intelligence to that effect. Nor did he speak on behalf of Homeland Security. A rather large difference. There have been no official reports on motivation or weapons as of yet. well if you want to get into a detailed definition of terrorism... perhaps. But terrorism is usually defined further as illegal acts targeting non-military persons (although the USS Cole bombing is an exception as are others). That is why war isn't considered terrorism.

There's absolutely zero indication it had anything to do with ISIS. None. The only place that was reported was FNC, which isn't news at all. The assertion that it would weaken a military base isn't valid since this was a recruitment station, not a strategic base or even one with arms. It was in a mini-mall for crying out loud. Even if it was ISIS back it would most certainly fall into the realm of terrorism which is the use of violence and/or fear to achieve political goals; it's NOT simply to cause fear. So if it was ISIS backed it would be to achieve the goal of weakening the US by attacking a recruiting station and showing US weakness and instilling fear into future recruits.

bc that's up for debate. Many will say we intervened over there for "freedom" and security yet we don't intervene in other areas of the world. Iraq had lots of oil and would serve as a check on Iran if we had a friendly govt. That all went to hell with a really poor plan and worse execution. It was a moneygrab and has not served as much more than that. I think it's really hard to crystallize what our long term plan are in that region, but it should focus on stability.

Yes i think that will come with modernatization of Iran and welcoming into the global community. Religious and theocratic rules always lose power when other ideas and education are introduced. The older Iranian rulers will most certainly lose power and the more "western"/young generation will slowly replace them, those who do not see the US as evil, but as a country with interests, just as they do.