International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Marjorie Taylor Greene thread. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347945)

dudalb 15th April 2022 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans (Post 13783166)
Basic problem being: How does the armed vigilante really know who is the bad guy? If everybody has guns, it's a big shoot-out. How do you know who are the bad guys?

In contrast, with gun regulations (severe ones), only criminals have guns, so the one with the gun is the criminal. (In fact even criminals will rarely be packing, as this alone will give them away.)

Hans

You willnever get a ban on private gun ownership ....which is what you are talking about...in the US, Just will not happen.

Norman Alexander 15th April 2022 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 13783235)
The criminals will be the ones who are members of some minority.;)

You mean white sub-neanderthal banjo-pickers?

newyorkguy 15th April 2022 03:11 AM

Israel announced yesterday that it has successfully tested a new laser-based Iron Beam defense system. Reportedly, they can be used against mortars and missiles. Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett was quoted as saying, “This may sound like science-fiction, but it’s real. The Iron Beam’s interceptions are silent, they’re invisible and they only cost around $3.50 apiece."

When emptyg heard about it she tweeted:
Quote:

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene @RepMTG
The military technology coming out of Israel is just jaw dropping.

Very impressive!

Congratulations to our friends in Israel!

Looks like Jewish space lasers are real and they kick ass!

(Relax and take a joke, everyone!) Twitter link
Yeah relax everyone. By the way, Marj, do you think these lasers could be deployed on New York City subway trains? Just askin' for a friend. ;)

Jim_MDP 15th April 2022 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13783598)
You willnever get a ban on private gun ownership ....which is what you are talking about...in the US, Just will not happen.

Can't disagree, on the face of it.
It will be another 20, 30 years before we've moved back toward a national push for it.
By then, we'll either be a theocracy where they're locked in... or in The Purge, where everyone will need a few. :D

Besides... it could only happen with an OZ style buyback, for 10 or 20 billion dollars, and no one is gonna get that passed.

Lurch 15th April 2022 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP (Post 13784061)
Can't disagree, on the face of it.
It will be another 20, 30 years before we've moved back toward a national push for it.
By then, we'll either be a theocracy where they're locked in... or in The Purge, where everyone will need a few. :D

Besides... it could only happen with an OZ style buyback, for 10 or 20 billion dollars, and no one is gonna get that passed.

Rather than everyone get torqued over the dollar figure of a buyback, consider matters from the standpoint of the per capita cost. For instance, assume for the moment a similar gun-to-citizen ratio. If the payout per gun averaged the same, then the higher total payout in the more populous nation would be nicely amortized by the concomitantly higher GDP.

Anyway, for the foreseeable future it's all moot. Where Oz had a fire lit under its collective arse over Port Arthur, in the US even numerous school massacres--Sandy Hook most notably--did not move the populace. In the same way that a nation can be judged by how it treats its poor (the US is risible), it can be weighed by how it deals with instruments of death designed specifically to kill efficiently (the US is obscene to a pornographic degree.)

shemp 16th April 2022 07:38 AM

Marjorie Taylor Greene Reports Her First Fundraising Loss

Quote:

The campaign committee for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) reported on Friday its first net loss since she was elected, posting a $314,000 deficit over the first three months of 2022 while additionally revising previous contribution totals down by more than $100,000.

About half of that loss is represented in fees to Donald Trump’s top Jan. 6 attorney and a security detail that protected Kyle Rittenhouse during his trial last year.

While Greene has always traded steep fees for slightly higher returns, she’s always managed to come out on top—until now.

Last quarter she sprung a hole in the bucket, as her campaign committee, Greene for Congress, spent about $1.38 million while taking in only $1.06 million in donations. Fundraising costs alone wiped out three-quarters of those receipts.

Greene, one of the top fundraisers in the House, has deployed expensive digital fundraising operations in the past, and reports have dinged her for it, pointing out that the fees give the lie to an inflated small-dollar contribution stream.

Last quarter, however, MAGAworld’s leading lady bet big on direct mail, sinking more than $400,000 into printing, postage, and associated expenses. When that money was added to consulting, list rental, and digital fees, Greene for Congress spent more than $735,000 on its fundraising efforts.

To make matters worse, the same day the campaign filed its new report, it also filed three amended versions of previous reports from last year, admitting that the committee had overstated contributions by more than $100,000. The campaign currently holds about $3 million in cash on hand, which represents a net gain of about $900,000 over the last 12 months.

Greene also spent big elsewhere this year, most specifically for personal security, racking up about $140,000 in expenses. Almost all of that went in three monthly payments to a Knoxville-based executive protection company called the KaJor Group, which also handled security for Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse during his trial last year.
So when idiots donate to her, 75% goes to fundraising costs. Aside from the political considerations, I would never give to charity that spends that much on fundraising. Morons!

Trebuchet 16th April 2022 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13783593)
If EmptyG can't even understand the difference between a simple plural and a possessive, proper comma usage is way over her head.

She's not a Grammar Nazi, just the regular kind.

newyorkguy 16th April 2022 10:30 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13784433)
...So when idiots donate to her, 75% goes to fundraising costs...

I can see the response now from the faithful.

Quote:

You think Biden don't do it? Or Pelosi? And probably a LOT worse!!! :mad:

Stacyhs 16th April 2022 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13784433)
Marjorie Taylor Greene Reports Her First Fundraising Loss



So when idiots donate to her, 75% goes to fundraising costs. Aside from the political considerations, I would never give to charity that spends that much on fundraising. Morons!

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 13784537)
I can see the response now from the faithful.

MORONS.

Stacyhs 16th April 2022 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 13784536)
She's not a Grammar Nazi, just the regular kind.

I'm sure she's one of the "good people" on that side.

shemp 16th April 2022 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 13784537)
I can see the response now from the faithful.

And the Dems spend that money on raping and murdering fetuses!

mgidm86 16th April 2022 02:46 PM

Seeing the photo above reminds me I need to clean my toilet.

bruto 16th April 2022 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 13784656)
Seeing the photo above reminds me I need to clean my toilet.

I hope you have better taste than they do, since they appear to be aiming to clean their guns with American flags.

mgidm86 16th April 2022 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13784657)
I hope you have better taste than they do, since they appear to be aiming to clean their guns with American flags.


I was thinking that her hair would make a good toilet scrubber. I don't own a flag.


Maybe I can use an RNC banner.

bruto 16th April 2022 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 13784662)
I was thinking that her hair would make a good toilet scrubber. I don't own a flag.


Maybe I can use an RNC banner.

On that last, I'm reminded of a comment by the late great (yeah, socialist too) Norman Thomas back in the 60's regarding student protests, that if you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag, wash it.

mgidm86 17th April 2022 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13784699)
On that last, I'm reminded of a comment by the late great (yeah, socialist too) Norman Thomas back in the 60's regarding student protests, that if you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag, wash it.


:thumbsup:

I wish we could "like" posts here.

In the fishing forum I attend we can do that. There's no negatives either. Just "like", thanks", "laugh".

There is no contest to see who can get the most or anything. It's mainly a convenient way to reply without actually needing to post, like I'm doing now. I think it's cool. Maybe this forum software is too old.

bruto 17th April 2022 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 13785227)
:thumbsup:

I wish we could "like" posts here.

In the fishing forum I attend we can do that. There's no negatives either. Just "like", thanks", "laugh".

There is no contest to see who can get the most or anything. It's mainly a convenient way to reply without actually needing to post, like I'm doing now. I think it's cool. Maybe this forum software is too old.

This is true on some other forums I am on. But I think this issue has come up, and it might not work so well where contention is inherent, as it does on things like discussions of cameras and machine tools.

Mike! 17th April 2022 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 13785227)
:thumbsup:

I wish we could "like" posts here.

In the fishing forum I attend we can do that. There's no negatives either. Just "like", thanks", "laugh".

There is no contest to see who can get the most or anything. It's mainly a convenient way to reply without actually needing to post, like I'm doing now. I think it's cool. Maybe this forum software is too old.

The subject comes up from time to time but is usually "voted down" when it does.
I for one, wouldn't hate having a "like" button, and I think it's even been mentioned the forum software would support the function, but for now, it's a no go.
But hey, we do have that handy "nominate" button at our disposal, which is close.

Stacyhs 17th April 2022 03:54 PM

If I like something, a quick two thumbs up is easy.

Susheel 19th April 2022 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike! (Post 13785244)
The subject comes up from time to time but is usually "voted down" when it does.

By whom?

TheGoldcountry 19th April 2022 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike! (Post 13785244)
The subject comes up from time to time but is usually "voted down" when it does.
I for one, wouldn't hate having a "like" button, and I think it's even been mentioned the forum software would support the function, but for now, it's a no go.
But hey, we do have that handy "nominate" button at our disposal, which is close.

I would vote for a "like" button simply for the fact that once in a while, someone will claim widespread support for their arguments, simply because everyone on the forum hasn't posted to disagree with them.

It has to be pointed out that silence =/= assent.

eerok 19th April 2022 09:44 AM

Justice slowly grinds on.

Federal Judge Refuses to Block Effort to Disqualify Marjorie Taylor Greene from Office Under 14th Amendment ‘Insurrection’ Prohibition (lawandcrime.com)
Quote:

Donald Trump loyalist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) cannot block efforts to disqualify her from running for re-election on the grounds that she allegedly engaged in insurrection, a federal judge ruled.

The ruling does not itself stop Greene’s re-election campaign, but it means a federal court will not grant Greene’s lawyers request to end-run a challenge submitted to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) assessing that question. A challenge, brought by five Georgia voters, will now go before an administrative law judge in Atlanta on Friday.

Stacyhs 19th April 2022 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eerok (Post 13786637)

:thumbsup::thumbsup: Hopefully, this will succeed and others will face the same thing. But, I doubt it.

dudalb 19th April 2022 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13784080)
Rather than everyone get torqued over the dollar figure of a buyback, consider matters from the standpoint of the per capita cost. For instance, assume for the moment a similar gun-to-citizen ratio. If the payout per gun averaged the same, then the higher total payout in the more populous nation would be nicely amortized by the concomitantly higher GDP.

Anyway, for the foreseeable future it's all moot. Where Oz had a fire lit under its collective arse over Port Arthur, in the US even numerous school massacres--Sandy Hook most notably--did not move the populace. In the same way that a nation can be judged by how it treats its poor (the US is risible), it can be weighed by how it deals with instruments of death designed specifically to kill efficiently (the US is obscene to a pornographic degree.)

I am not so sure a total ban on private ownership of weapons is even desireable.

dudalb 19th April 2022 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13784433)
Marjorie Taylor Greene Reports Her First Fundraising Loss



So when idiots donate to her, 75% goes to fundraising costs. Aside from the political considerations, I would never give to charity that spends that much on fundraising. Morons!

Maybe the act is getting old.....

Norman Alexander 19th April 2022 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13784080)
Rather than everyone get torqued over the dollar figure of a buyback, consider matters from the standpoint of the per capita cost. For instance, assume for the moment a similar gun-to-citizen ratio. If the payout per gun averaged the same, then the higher total payout in the more populous nation would be nicely amortized by the concomitantly higher GDP.

Anyway, for the foreseeable future it's all moot. Where Oz had a fire lit under its collective arse over Port Arthur, in the US even numerous school massacres--Sandy Hook most notably--did not move the populace. In the same way that a nation can be judged by how it treats its poor (the US is risible), it can be weighed by how it deals with instruments of death designed specifically to kill efficiently (the US is obscene to a pornographic degree.)

For the record, the post Port Arthur gun crack-down was on semi-autos primarily, although they accepted any arms at all. Plenty of old long-arms were handed in too. (Hand-guns and automatic weapons were very strictly controlled already.) The Prime Minister of the country at the time who promulgated and pushed this law with such haste was one of our most reactionary right-wing semi-fascists named John Howard. Not exactly a bleeding-heart, gun-hating, socialist/commie "lib" in any sense of the word.

gnome 20th April 2022 08:13 AM

What's funny is how people (like Alex Jones) go to great lengths to imagine that mass shootings are a manufactured phenomenon to justify oppressive gun control in the US. It seems like lately it causes a large movement against additional legislation, including much that would have been far less controversial before.

MRC_Hans 20th April 2022 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13787015)
I am not so sure a total ban on private ownership of weapons is even desireable.

I have long since decided not to enter such discussions, but ... can't help it:

Please explain why you are not sure of that? What purpose does private gun ownership serve? (Hunting and target shooting for sport is well handled in countries that otherwise ban private guns.)

Hans

dudalb 20th April 2022 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans (Post 13787812)
I have long since decided not to enter such discussions, but ... can't help it:

Please explain why you are not sure of that? What purpose does private gun ownership serve? (Hunting and target shooting for sport is well handled in countries that otherwise ban private guns.)

Hans

It is a last resort against tryanny. The gun nuts are right about that.
I am in favor of reasonable controls but a total disarming of the population...no.

newyorkguy 20th April 2022 02:18 PM

1 Attachment(s)
emptyg lost her cool during a local TV interview. Tennessee-based news station WTVC interviewed Greene via Zoom. They referred to the legal action filed aiming at prohibiting Greene from holding office. The reporter, Ilene Gould Tweeted:

Quote:

I asked @RepMTG
"should a candidate be allowed to run for office if they participated in an insurrection?"
She says: "But there was no insurrection. No Republican member, no one in Trump's administration, President Trump, participated in any riot or had anything to do with it." Twitter link
Here is the link to the video of Greene angrily denying everything. "This is a scam!"

Captain_Swoop 20th April 2022 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13787835)
It is a last resort against tyranny.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

MRC_Hans 20th April 2022 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13787835)
It is a last resort against tryanny. The gun nuts are right about that.
I am in favor of reasonable controls but a total disarming of the population...no.

I suppose the countries I use as reference have a credible defense against tyranny in their constitutions. Still, what do you imagine private arms could actually do against a tyranny, except make the mayhem even worse??

Hans

MRC_Hans 20th April 2022 03:08 PM

Oh, I think we're into a bit of a derail here.

Hans

Stacyhs 20th April 2022 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13787835)
It is a last resort against tryanny. The gun nuts are right about that.
I am in favor of reasonable controls but a total disarming of the population...no.

No, it's not. This isn't 1776 when the weapons individuals owned were pretty much equivalent to what armies had. There were no tanks, bombers, fighter jets, missiles. Unless you advocate private ownership of tanks, bombers, fighter jets, and missiles, individual firearms ain't gonna do jack S.

Stacyhs 20th April 2022 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 13787844)
emptyg lost her cool during a local TV interview. Tennessee-based news station WTVC interviewed Greene via Zoom. They referred to the legal action filed aiming at prohibiting Greene from holding office. The reporter, Ilene Gould Tweeted:



Here is the link to the video of Greene angrily denying everything. "This is a scam!"

Crazy in, crazy out. Her blatantly obvious attempt at misdirection by implying Omar and Kamala (whose name she mispronounced) had been involved in an insurrection just goes to support how stupid and knee-jerk she is. What an ass.

newyorkguy 20th April 2022 06:09 PM

1 Attachment(s)
A group of Georgia voters are seeking to disqualify Greene from running for reelection citing her role in the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol and a provision in the 14th amendment which disqualifies anyone who has engaged in rebellion or insurrection against the United States from holding office. Greene has called the January 6th rioters "patriots," and those arrested "political prisoners." She has also talked about the need for a national "divorce."

In the Tennessee TV interview Greene is asked if a lawmaker took part in a riot or insurrection should they be disqualified from seeking election. She begins by asking, "You mean like Ilhan Omar or Kamala Harris?" The interviewer says, "No. you are accused of...." but Greene cuts her off, saying, "I'm not accused of anything."

The trouble is, for the demographic Greene plays to, that comment, "You mean like Ilhan Omar or Kamala Harris?" would probably bring them to their feet cheering wildly. The same demographic which is okay with Greene posing with a rifle alongside images of AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, but when Jimmy Kimmel joked, "Where's Will Smith when we need him?" that's a violent threat of the kind not to be tolerated.

Remember?
Quote:

Matt Gaetz @mattgaetz
Jimmy Kimmel thinks women should be physically harmed.
ABC and their advertisers are cool with it so long as the women are Republicans.
ETA: Matty boy didn't have a problem with the rifle ad, did he?

Lurch 21st April 2022 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13787928)
No, it's not. This isn't 1776 when the weapons individuals owned were pretty much equivalent to what armies had. There were no tanks, bombers, fighter jets, missiles. Unless you advocate private ownership of tanks, bombers, fighter jets, and missiles, individual firearms ain't gonna do jack S.

Pretty much what I had planned to retort with. Amazing that otherwise thinking individuals can delude themselves into believing that in the age of the nuclear missile a rabble of gun toters could do anything meaningful against a tyrannical government.

Actually, as events have shown, the bulk of the armed rabble are more likely to side with tyranny! Thus doubly putting the lie to the delusion.

MRC_Hans 21st April 2022 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13788345)
Pretty much what I had planned to retort with. Amazing that otherwise thinking individuals can delude themselves into believing that in the age of the nuclear missile a rabble of gun toters could do anything meaningful against a tyrannical government.

Actually, as events have shown, the bulk of the armed rabble are more likely to side with tyranny! Thus doubly putting the lie to the delusion.

The latter is a very important point.

Hans

JoeMorgue 21st April 2022 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 13787957)
ETA: Matty boy didn't have a problem with the rifle ad, did he?

I don't know whether to be scared or impressed by the trolls on the Right's inability to know and/or care how utterly stupid they look when they try to look "badass."

SuburbanTurkey 21st April 2022 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13787928)
No, it's not. This isn't 1776 when the weapons individuals owned were pretty much equivalent to what armies had. There were no tanks, bombers, fighter jets, missiles. Unless you advocate private ownership of tanks, bombers, fighter jets, and missiles, individual firearms ain't gonna do jack S.

Privateering was a common practice, so private citizens owned their own warships which were the most potent weapon systems of the era.

There was nothing at the time preventing someone from owning a field cannon either. I imagine many didn't for the same reason people don't own tanks or jet aircraft today, it's expensive and wildly impractical.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.