Latest Diablo 3 News
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

The Joe Biden gaffe thread.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Amra, May 18, 2009.

  1. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,182
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    There is much to say about e.g. the F-15 statement, depending on the context you would like to add to it. So what would be a good summary of your point?
     
  2. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,525
    Likes Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    509
    Well, if it's a summary you want... inherently it's a falsehood. It mirrors an insane claim Rep. Eric Swalwell made (& Joe actually made the same bone-headed reference elsewhere):
    Democratic Rep. Swalwell warns gun owners that 'government has nukes'

    The reason it's a ludicrous falsehood is easily recognized, when you not only consider America's involvement in both Iraq & Afghanistan (to say nothing of Vietnam) but that Swalwell & Joe were referring to their own constituency. Simply put, a government has to be committed to ethnic cleansing in order to impose its will upon a restive populace, even if that populace is foreign. It has echoes in the famous quote from Admiral Yamamoto, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

    The very reason that the American "Founding Fathers" included the 2nd Amendment springs from concepts involving resistance against internal enemies (AKA "Tyrants") as well as external ones. They reportedly respected the Swiss model; in the original U.S. context, the concept of "Cincinnatus" was expressed as that all able-bodied men had armaments akin to modern light infantry (which yes, included automatic weapons). That "well regulated militia" concept extended even to private ownership of warships and artillery... not only desired & even expected!

    My assorted oaths of service generally have included the phrase, "against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

    Part of the reason neither Japan nor Germany were rebellious after WW2 had to do both with the length of occupation and the circumstances of surrender. Germany recognized long before the end of the war what horrors they had spawned, and the Japanese are still trying to pretend they didn't do anything.
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  3. Dredd

    Dredd D3 Off Topic Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,166
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    142
    You shouldn't be surprised by this. He was VP for 8 years and name recognition goes a long way with the general public, gaffes or no. Whether or not he'll maintain that lead long enough to win the Dem nomination is another story.

    I can't fathom 4 years of Bush II Biden nor do I want to imagine another 4 with the Great Pumpkin so I'm really not looking forward to 2020. :p
     
  4. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,182
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    Regarding people with rifles, I think that it needs far less bad guys with guns to be a threat to stately order than good people with guns to counter them. They will probably be better armed on average and more willing to put guns to (cynism ahead!) good use, like a $50 income for their cause by shooting somebody (not necessarily their enemies) while good guys will do less of that for obvious reasons. I think the issue of gun ownership is is more a matter of the US American understanding of freedom. I' fine with that, just not with the saying that gun ownership generally protects from tyrants.

    The answer probably lies in what a well-regulated militia is. There is no unconditional right to bear arms. It is to be regulated. Apart from that, I think the best protection from tyrants is a functioning constitutional state with a working separation of power and well-educated citizens.
     
  5. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,525
    Likes Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    509
    You're citing what might be considered a 'truism'; police can't "serve & protect" because they can never <prevent> criminal activity. The principal duty of police is deterrence, or intimidation of the citizenry if you prefer.

    Remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
    False again. I shall respond in music (from one of the most recognizably conservative/libertarian bands ever, so much so that Leftists reportedly had meltdowns after their music was played after Trump's victory):


    False a third time; to this one I shall respond with Internet meme:

    Schindler.jpg

    With this you make a fourth false statement. There is an unconditional right to bear arms, if one presupposes that the State does not have a greater moral right than the Citizenry.

    THAT is the fundamental difference between America and Europe; y'all have the innate expectation of being ruled by a self-selected elite, while America rejects that premise.

    Or at least, it used to...

    Now there's fully 1/2 of the Democrat Party and a not insignificant number of Republicans that desire what I label as Fascism but that prefer the title of "Progressivism": that the naked power of the State be used to oppress those who disagree with them and enforce their will - or minimally, silence and even harm or execute those who they dislike. They claim that it's not about oppression or violence, but that somehow the power of the State is to be used for the betterment of all... they just don't like to get down to brass tacks about what that really means.

    Regardless, it is a very active discussion, argued in bad faith by the Progressives and in increasingly paranoid fashion by those with whom they disagree (myself included). Recently a movie which claimed to be satire apparently came too close to the bone on both sides, supposedly due to the mass shootings (which I think is a bull-carp assertion) and so will be postponed until later release.



    PS the trailer's music score happens to be from the same band.
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  6. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,182
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    Regarding the police: I think that regarding "good" laws or "proper behavior", there are not so few people who only heed them out of fear of punishment and not because they believe them to be right. You need a certain amount of deterrence to keep them in check.

    Regarding the song: I haven't said that all "bad people" are of the "kill somebody for $50" type, but as an example - that they are more willing to do that if they can safely get away with that. A couple of them just don't do it because it gives them the illusion of being a good person. Not all evil deeds are of the "kill for $50" kind.

    Regarding nazi Germany: Your logic is going the wrong way around. There are a lot of well-going countries with few guns in private hands and there were quite a few people in Germany with guns before the nazis came to power. It didn't didn't prevent their rise. It didn't even need many people to perform all those nazi crimes. It was the lack of willingness to defend democracy. Making enough people across the country to look the other way is all that's needed in addition.
     
  7. superdave

    superdave Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    475
    Wait. Are you talking about 1930's Germany or present day USA?
     
  8. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,525
    Likes Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    509
    Police are simply the coercive force behind public will. In democracies they generally only enforce laws that are acceptable to the citizenry; in dictatorships or similar systems (thinking of Iran's morality police) they only enforce laws that are acceptable to the rulers. China regularly uses "show trials" for charges that are generally let slide... "Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres."
    I should have been more specific: the song title is literally "Saturday Night Special" and I referenced it because of your somewhat silly assertion that criminals would invest in superior hardware than law-abiders would. Historically this is not borne out by the evidence; weapons are regarded as heirlooms by citizens while criminals tend to be 'cheap' in large degree. Neither is it valid in contemporary terms; expensive weaponry is cherished and is more or less a hobby, while criminals try to obtain cheap, untraceable weapons ("Saturday Night Specials").

    The imaginary "gun show loophole" you may have heard exists in the US is a similar falsehood, because there are simply not many people wandering around gun shows peddling firearms, and those few that might receive extra scrutiny. The Obama administration's "Fast and Furious" scandal involved the Feds (FBI) deliberately peddling weaponry obtained from American gun stores to Central American narco-terrorists in order to create the impression that such sales were frequent! In reality, the store owners blew the whistle on these efforts immediately, and were literally instructed by the FBI to allow the illegal sales.
    Again, I should have been more specific, though I can hardly imagine I know German history better than you? One of the first measures the Nazis took was firearm confiscation, from Jews in specific and later, from citizens in general.
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  9. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,182
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    I guess, with the right phrasing you could partly express the state of both societies at the same time.

    I don't think that Trump supporters are anti-democratic (not meaning the party, but political or societal systems based on it), they are just ignorant. That's what I meant when writing that well-educated people are necessary. It's not the same issue, but the motivation and the state of the people have a few similarities, like being torn between two sides and one being unsatisfied and angry about something they fail to comprehend or reduce to a dumbed down version that doesn't overburden their brain. In Germany, it led to the nazis taking over. If it should happen in the US, it will probably be something else, but whatever can benefit the most from such a scenario, it most probably won't be anything good.

    Germany was able to achieve remarkable feats (in a negative sense) when the nazis came to power, like defeating France and driving back Britain simultaneously (although it was a dangerous gamble). What could happen if something like that occurs in the US? Trump was successful in a totally unexpected manner. Thank god he's so incompetent. The next guy might try the same strategy, but with much more skills and a more dangerous collection of character flaws/virtues and that will most probably not lead to anything good if he's successful.

    That's what I meant with applying logic the other way around. It doesn't proove at all that guns are particularly useful to protect from tyranny. They are surely a help in the hands of the right people, but they won't be the most significant factor whether tyranny will establish or not, although it's useful to disarm people to maintain it. Also, they are more of a threat if in the hands of the wrong people, like those in NSDAP militias.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  10. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,525
    Likes Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    509
    In reality, you've got it the other way around.

    TEA Party advocates were substantially higher in education level and comprehension of political issues than their Democrat "socialist" counterparts - an inconvenient truth which the Democrats want to avoid recognizing at all costs. Factually, "Free Stuffz!" doesn't require intelligence or comprehension... pretty much the opposite.

    The fact that Trump is a buffoonish blowhard ignores both the reason Christian Conservatives supported him and the reality that he's been a centrist Democrat his whole life. If you want to watch a Fascist Progressive melt like the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" clip I showed previously, all you need do is find a quote or picture from the one currently shrieking for his blood from a few years back, where they're fumbling between his legs or desperately clawing at his zipper. He's even made fun of their grotesque hypocrisy (case in point is Joe Scarborough & his adulteress co-host, Mika Brzezinski).
    You're getting very far away from your original claim, which I don't blame you for since it was silly. That said, something IS happening with the US; we have nearly half of one of our political parties who are desperate for a Nazi-style takeover.

    No, I'm not talking about the GOP.

    Trump's not only incompetent, but his policies are nowhere near as edgy as the hysterical shrieking from the Progressive Fascists would imply; hell, both Felonia Von Pantsuit (Hillary) and Stuttering Clusterfark of a Miserable Failure (Obama) had these policies.

    Most of what you're seeing over there is frantic masturbation by the media AKA "chattering class" over how to reverse Trump's surprising electoral victory and reinstate their Progressive agenda.
    At the risk of repeating myself, the point was the Nazis confiscated guns in order to disarm those they wanted to oppress. Once they had successfully oppressed/eliminated their victims & opposition, they relaxed their policy in order to arm said militias.
     
  11. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,182
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    I got that. I'm repeating myself as well, but the matter was about preventing them to come to power. Once they have it, no amount of guns among the common people will change that, but it's better to have unarmed common people than armed ones, of course.

    In particular in these days, a highly developed country will have not much of a problem to keep a rebellious population in check. All they have to do is, for example, to produce a caste of soldiers, policemen etc. which is separated from the others and produces the next generation of suppressors on their own. These people will have less qualms at keeping the others in check with whatever may be needed to achieve that. Even 100 million people with guns will have no chance against a US army of that kind.
     
  12. superdave

    superdave Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    475
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium_(film)

    I love me some gun fu!
     
  13. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,525
    Likes Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    509
    Again, military history & military science establish that your claim is unequivocally wrong about keeping a rebellious population suppressed. I don't need to post my evidence again, since you wouldn't read it the first time, but America already has a "warrior caste" and they're remarkably Libertarian-minded.

    Hong Kong is the obvious current example; China will create a bloodbath because those citizens don't self-identify as Chinese Communists even though they're disarmed. Ditto for Taiwan. In both cases the Chinese aren't the obvious victor, unless they decide to "go full Swalwell" and nuke the site from orbit (it's the only way to be sure).

    In order to achieve the sort of suppression you're discussing, you'd have to have an external populace, (Islamists, for example, rather than regular Muslims) raised in a situation they already have cultural dominance over a supine, spineless, liberal-identifying population. You might be seeing hints of that in Sweden, and I think the rest of Europe is in for a rough ride; the oppressive ethos is precisely because these Islamist "citizens" don't identify with the host culture yet are treated as if they're internal to it with commensurate legal protections.

    (PS I figured I better emphasize that the term Islamist refers to someone who believes in political Islam, i.e. no separation of Church & State, following Shar'iah rather than Western jurisprudence)
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.
  14. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,525
    Likes Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    509
  15. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,182
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Trophy Points:
    416
    Sometimes you don't notice that you said something wrong, even if you know better. Sometimes you might even be a bit stubborn with figuring out where you made a mistake, even in trivial or obvious matters. I guess if you ask him in which year King was killed, the answer would be about the correct decade while it's a different thing in a speech. It's still a bit embarrassing, but I don't think it's a proof that he's dumb or senile.

    I don't know what it is like with your memory, but when recalling certain things, I'm sometimes off by 20-50% as well, something that happens to basically all people. Also, look here:

    I edited it when I watched the video again months later. You probably don't think that I don't know what Apollo 8 was about and what happened at Apollo 11. However, that slip was significant enough for me to remember it (and also the place where it happened) after... uhm, 3 years? Whoops, no, it were 5, I'm off by 67%!

    BTW, I knew instantly who's meant with MLK, but I needed a few seconds for RFK and I guess I wouldn't have been able to figure it out in time in a public debate where you have to reply within 3 seconds. Would that have been a gaffe as well?
     
  16. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,525
    Likes Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    509
    It would. Obama's claim that there were 57 US States or pronouncing corpsmen as "corpse-men" were more significant gaffes, because they were stated without recognition of how stupid he looked. Joe at least is vaguely conscious that he's crapping his pants, and therefore often tries to amend his statements later.

    It's more than disingenuous to try to claim such gaffes are pure stupidity or dishonesty; they're quite different from open lies (or real retardation, for that matter, like believing Guam might tip over if there were too many American troops stationed there). For example, Trump extremely fluent in hyperbole, as many of his socio-economic background are; while the media seizes on his false claims as PREZIDENT DRUMPH [email protected]!, the vast majority are simply his poor accuracy. The media is extraordinarily reluctant to treat Democrats in such fashion, to the point that they willfully suppress such.

    A well-known example are New York Muslims partying as the towers came down on 9/11 - there was actually film footage of this, reported on local news (and now, of course, suppressed... but I remember seeing it as well). Trump confused that reporting and his own remembrances with the contemporary coverage of so-called "Palestine", where film captured thousands dancing in the streets. Likewise, Trump was told that his inauguration was the most viewed ever, and he misinterpreted that as if his inauguration had the largest crowd, a patently false claim. Both would be labeled 'gaffes' if uttered by a Democrat, but for Trump they were LIES! LIES! COLLUSION! RUSSIA!!

    Contrast those with ACTUAL Trump lies; that reporter Michelle Fields was dishonest when she filed assault charges against Trump's aide Corey Lewandowski, or his wide assortment of accusations against Ted Cruz, or many of his claims about Trump-branded products, &c. &c.

    On the Progressive/fascist Left, most notable aside from widespread deception about Hillary's e-mails (which is still a developing story) was the media hiding and excusing Bill Clinton's behavior as a rapist & pedophile. There's also John Edwards paying off his mistress with campaign funds, Hillary and Obama lying about Benghazi while literally standing over their victim's corpses, and Obama claiming his extraordinarily close relationships with a number of terrorists wasn't true.

    Bottom line - politicians are filthy liars and sociopaths. Who knew? The reason it's vile for the media to scream their fool fascist heads off about Trump is that most Democrats have done far worse on the campaign trail or during their term in office. This is because the media runs interference for them and deliberately memory-holes lies or defamatory information when it's someone on their 'side'.
     
    LozHinge the Unhinged likes this.

Share This Page