Texas Governor Abbott must be lying

[Futbol Phan]

He claims that the Odessa mass killer didn't go through a background check for the gun he used. But I read right here in this chatrum that every gun sold in this country requires a background check. Why would Gov. Abbott lie?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/odessa-gunman-failed-background-check_n_5d6de71ce4b0cdfe0574910b

[Tom Enright]

Dumnest.
Post.
Ever.

-TE

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Don't be so hard on yourself, Tom - you've done dumner.

"we really need the public’s help to reach out to us when they see people in that downward spiral that may be on that road to violence.”

This seems to be the response the Rs are coalescing around - we need to identify people before they commit a crime and... do what? Something, I guess. Lock em up for thought crime? The whole thing (neighbors and family identifying "risky" individuals, pre-emptive action) is about 10x more 1984 than any gun control suggested by the left.

I'm not much in favor of more gun control tbh but as usual the winger undeas are so stupid they're only worth talking about if they suddenly display any degree of competence and decide they know what they wanna do to folks labeled "risky" by their peers. Iows, not too worried they'll do shit (incompetence), but worth pointing out how *shockingly* stupid their half formed ideas are... as usual.

Cheers.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Ya kain't trust this here chatspot. Not too long ago someone said
oBAMA was not a SSoSS. That be as laughabull as it gets.

Hugh

[michael anderson]

Wasn't really familiar with Abbott before all this; but I have to say I've been impressed from what I've seen.

[Tom Enright]

On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 1:08:38 PM UTC-4, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:

> Don't be so hard on yourself, Tom - you've done dumner.

No, no. I think that stating that nobody ever breaks the law is pretty
stupid. But in defending what he wrote, you've joined him.

> "we really need the public’s help to reach out to us when they see people
> in that downward spiral that may be on that road to violence.”
>
> This seems to be the response the Rs are coalescing around - we need
> to identify people before they commit a crime and... do what? Something,
> I guess. Lock em up for thought crime? The whole thing (neighbors and
> family identifying "risky" individuals, pre-emptive action) is about
> 10x more 1984 than any gun control suggested by the left.

...? So if you have a relative who is suffering some type of mental
break and appears to be on their way to harming themselves or someone else
you would do...nothing? Behaving as a family is now Orwellian? Are you
sure you understand the concept of 'family?'

> I'm not much in favor of more gun control tbh but as usual the winger
> undeas are so stupid they're only worth talking about if they suddenly
> display any degree of competence and decide they know what they wanna
> do to folks labeled "risky" by their peers. Iows, not too worried
> they'll do shit (incompetence), but worth pointing out how *shockingly*
> stupid their half formed ideas are... as usual.

Well you are half-right, which is actually pretty good. The pre-crime ideas
are indeed very stupid, but they are pushed by the Democrats as the GOP
are generally against them. "Red Flag", removal of firearms from those on
the no-fly list etc. are all the type of thing that the left pushes.

-TE

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Lol. Ok, Tom - I'm your brother and I say you're spiralling.

Now fill in what you expect the government to do with that info.

I would suggest you can't because you haven't thought things through. On the other hand, if you do proscribe some government intervention you're straight up 1984-ing us. Sophie's choice.

I'm betting you'll completely avoid the "so what should the gov do next" question, break out a bunch of straw, and make me sound like a dick for even asking the question. Which is sorta in your wheelhouse.

Cheers.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:08:36 -0700 (PDT), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:

>This seems to be the response the Rs are coalescing around - we need to ide=

>ntify people before they commit a crime and... do what?

Do what is the problem. Lock them in an asylum. But all the bleeding
heart socialiasts won't accept that.

>Something, I guess=
>. Lock em up for thought crime? The whole thing (neighbors and family ide=
>ntifying "risky" individuals, pre-emptive action) is about 10x more 1984 th=

>an any gun control suggested by the left.

Nothing is more stupid than Phat Phart and you thinking the gun is the
problem, not the person.

>I'm not much in favor of more gun control tbh but as usual the winger undea=
>s are so stupid they're only worth talking about if they suddenly display a=
>ny degree of competence and decide they know what they wanna do to folks la=
>beled "risky" by their peers. Iows, not too worried they'll do shit (incom=
>petence), but worth pointing out how *shockingly* stupid their half formed =
>ideas are... as usual.

You point at "wingers" and you have 3 fingers pointing at yourself.
And properly so.

Hugh

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Just calling out that our ultimate R dude (hugh) calls for locking up folks that display ba CD tendencies.

I'm guessing he speaks for most rsfcons but let me know otherwise.

Cheers.
Derek

[Tom Enright]

On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 3:47:20 PM UTC-4, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:

> Lol. Ok, Tom - I'm your brother and I say you're spiralling.
>
> Now fill in what you expect the government to do with that info.

Wow. You've gone from soy-liberal to far-right crank at warp speed.
Telling people to reach-out to troubled individuals is in fact a
conspiracy to control our minds...our something.

> I would suggest you can't because you haven't thought things through.
> On the other hand, if you do proscribe some government intervention
> you're straight up 1984-ing us. Sophie's choice.
>
> I'm betting you'll completely avoid the "so what should the gov do
> next" question, break out a bunch of straw, and make me sound like a
> dick for even asking the question. Which is sorta in your wheelhouse.

I've answered that question. RIF.

You have a problem with 'pre-crime,' with which I agree, yet you totally
ignore two suggestions that do exactly that, 'Red Flag' and barring
someone from buying a firearm because they are on the no-fly list. Two
clear-cut examples of what you say you deplore but don't even comment
on them. Strange.

-TE

[Futbol Phan]

On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 1:24:01 PM UTC-4, michael anderson wrote:
> Wasn't really familiar with Abbott before all this; but I have to say I've been impressed from what I've seen.

He plays well in Birmingham, I'm sure.

[J25...@protonmail.com]

Around Birmingham, but probably not so much within Birmingham.

[michael anderson]

depends on what part. I know rsfcers wouldn't be expected to know or care about what goes down in a small city in Alabama, but I live here so I'll waste time:

Birmingham itself- is 80-85% black. I doubt you will find him(or any republican) all that popular there.

the areas around Birmingham around divided into 3 major areas.

a small population of cities(Mountain Brook, parts of Homewood, parts of Vestavia) which abut the city itself and on issues like guns are fairly liberal unfortunately. They have really good public schools(mountain brooks test scores are unreal), are more liberal on social issues but at the same time lots of churches, high(relatively) property values. overall greg abbott wouldn't play that well here on the guns issue. we're talking about a small number of people in Mtn brook and parts of Vestavia and Homewood- maybe 25k. Mountain brook is probably not an area of Birmingham you knew existed.

Go out from this and you have Hoover and other communities that are not 'rural' but also outside the mtn brook/Homewood area. Hoover is itself probably has 150k people. Abbott would play well here. This is your typical community of nice cookie cutter but affordable homes one after the other surrounded by HOAs and endless bigbox shopping centers around them. Mostly white(75%) but not totally as it is very affordable in terms of real estate.

And then beyond that(like well past the Hoover type places), is pretty much the rest of Alabama....which is very poor and rural. Abbott would play well here.

And now you've read or not read way more than you ever wanted to about Birmingham.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:47:58 -0700 (PDT), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Just calling out that our ultimate R dude (hugh) calls for locking up folks that display ba CD tendencies.

That's not exactly true. If it was it would include all libs.

>I'm guessing he speaks for most rsfcons but let me know otherwise.

I speak only for myself - others may agree.

When you can show me there were no killings prior to guns I will
accept the thought that guns are the problem. I expect Phat Phart to
be ignorant on the issue, I expected more of you.

Hugh

[Futbol Phan]

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 9:02:29 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

> When you can show me there were no killings prior to guns I will
> accept the thought that guns are the problem. I expect Phat Phart to
> be ignorant on the issue, I expected more of you.

Hilarious. That first sentence displays a level of thought that is primitive even for you. "Let's go back to the cave man days"-- the ultimate conservative perspective.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Hmmm. I expected more. You assume an either or clause, but I'm fighting for both sides.

And motherrsfck rsfck rsfcking rsfck I just weighed in +200 for the first time ever.

Rsfck. Rsfck.

Cheers.

[Futbol Phan]

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 7:48:16 AM UTC-4, michael anderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 10:43:22 PM UTC-5, Futbol Phan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 1:24:01 PM UTC-4, michael anderson wrote:
> > > Wasn't really familiar with Abbott before all this; but I have to say I've been impressed from what I've seen.
> >
> > He plays well in Birmingham, I'm sure.
>
> depends on what part. I know rsfcers wouldn't be expected to know or care about what goes down in a small city in Alabama, but I live here so I'll waste time:
>
> Birmingham itself- is 80-85% black. I doubt you will find him(or any republican) all that popular there.

Just seems like that to those with your perspective. Actually 62%.

[michael anderson]

No according to the Wikipedia the 2010 census lists it as 73% black and 22% white.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 06:48:19 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 9:02:29 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> When you can show me there were no killings prior to guns I will
>> accept the thought that guns are the problem. I expect Phat Phart to
>> be ignorant on the issue, I expected more of you.
>
>
>Hilarious. That first sentence displays a level of thought that is primitive even for you.

I needed to post something you could understand.

> "Let's go back to the cave man days"-- the ultimate conservative perspective.

You can't return - you never left.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:39:39 -0700 (PDT), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Hmmm. I expected more. You assume an either or clause, but I'm fighting for both sides.

You should be fighting for the answer that might work - sides don't
matter. And any answer will need constant fine tuning.

That's part of the problem. We're too interested in one-upping the
other side to look very hard for an answer. And I'm honest enough to
admit my guilt.

>And motherrsfck rsfck rsfcking rsfck I just weighed in +200 for the first time ever.

Go to the gym, hoss. I went from 292 to 208.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

I doubt that much difference. Jefferson Co. hasn't even filed for
bankruptcy yet.

Hugh

[J25...@protonmail.com]

Futbol, are you looking at the 2000 census? Regardless of the actual number, I don’t see Birmingham proper as Abbott country.