Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

DC area shooting.Follow

#52 Jun 22 2017 at 11:25 AM Rating: Good
******
49,735 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Can I hold an AK 47 "gangster style"?
Capone or Fiddy Cent?

Edited, Jun 22nd 2017 1:26pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#53 Jun 22 2017 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You need to get a gold plated AK 47, Lord of War style.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Jun 22 2017 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Can I hold an AK 47 "gangster style"? Asking for a friend.


Only with a drum mag.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#55 Jun 22 2017 at 1:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Quote:
You need to get a gold plated AK 47, Lord of War style.
Man I just picked mine up off a fresh corpse after smashing the guy over the head with a crowbar. Kids these days are spoiled...

Smiley: disappointed

Edited, Jun 22nd 2017 12:23pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#56 Jun 22 2017 at 1:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
That thread is fun. I like how 6 years ago we were already well accustomed to talking about people's old tricks and going on about good 'ol days and such. Smiley: lol

I just noticed it has me linking back to an even earlier thread about the 2008 election. Zam-ception!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Jun 22 2017 at 8:44 PM Rating: Good
***
1,064 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
Can I hold an AK 47 "gangster style"?
Capone or Fiddy Cent?


I like to mix it u- I mean, my friend likes to mix it up.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#58 Jun 22 2017 at 9:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Jophiel wrote:
ITT: Gbaji rapidly flails from "They all called it an AK47 style weapon but it looks nothing like that!!!" to "Uh, But pictures on the internet are probably REALLY of AK47s" to "Those pictures of guns for sale by gun dealers are nothing like the guns that gun dealers sell!".


That's a pretty gross mischaracterization of my argument. It does look nothing like an AK47. Well, to anyone who's familiar with the weapons, which one would assume someone claiming to be "absolutely positive" should be in order to make the claim in the first place. I can only speculate as to what images you might be looking at which suggest otherwise, but if you're seeing an image of something that looks like an AK47, it likely is an image of an AK47, because... wait for it... the two weapons do not look alike. And guess what? At the same time those two statements are true, the statement that most of the SKS weapons you're likely to see for sale in a gun store are *not* going to have the after market "assault weapon" style modifications on them is also true. There's no "shifting argument" going on here. More like "multiple arguments", all of which support my position.

Here's a link to an online dealer's SKS listings. There are far more of them that look like the classic hunting rifle style weapon than look like a more modern military style weapon. That's literally the only point I'm making here. I'm not at all, nor have I ever argued that it's impossible to buy an SKS with a pistol grip, folding stock, flare suppressor, etc. I am arguing that this is far less common than the standard version nowadays, especially in a gun shop.

And, just for irony's sake, the reason such modifications exist at all is because of the dumb "assault weapons ban" that was passed here in the US, because all the rifles that came with such design features by default were on the banned list, while the SKS was not. Smart third party gun manufacturers realized that they could buy crates of SKS's for cheap, remove the stock body, replace it with one that had the "military style" features, and then sell them to all the people who couldn't buy AR-15s and AK47 knock offs, but wanted something with that look. It was basically an "F---- You" to the ban, by showing that it was based on purely cosmetic changes.

Once the ban expired, now something like 15 years ago, the need to modify them more or less disappeared. So today, if you're buying an SKS and it has those features, it was most likely resold back to a store somewhere. Hence why it's not that common to find. Especially if you're just walking into a gun store and looking for a weapon to buy on short notice. For comparison, load up the AR-15 section on that same site I just linked. There's 26 pages of them, compared to one page of SKS.

Quote:
To answer your question though, yes.


But like once, right?

Quote:
Hilariously, the only one flipping out, losing their shit and writing multiple ten paragraph rants about it because they're just certain what the gun looked like (Pappy's Possum Plinker!) is you.


No. I'm certain that it did not look or sound like an AK-47. And I'm correct in that statement.

Quote:
I admit that I only skimmed your conversation with Lolgaxe but I see you're whining about "News from anywhere" being taken out of context again. It's not, and you know it but here's the thread yet again for anyone interested.


You mean where the very next sentence reads:

Quote:
Unlike you, I don't sit around regurgitating what others are saying.


Pretty clear I was saying that I'm not just going to some news source, taking them at face value, and repeating what they said.

Quote:
You were making real factual errors about the negotiations, not differences of opinion. I asked you where you were getting your news from that you kept getting basic factual things wrong and you famously responded.


Except we were not arguing about facts and figures Joph. That's the point. Well, you may have, but that's because *you* were trotting off to various sites and just quoting what they said. What I was doing was arguing about the intent and purpose of the negotiations. I was pointing out (correctly btw), that the numbers you kept quoting were themselves compromise figures. And I pointed out (again correctly) that this number kept decreasing in each round of negotiations.

I was talking about the process. You never seemed to get that though. My argument is not something that could be quoted from some source because it was my argument. I get that for many here, it's assumed to be impossible to have an original thought and express it, and thus everything that is said must be sourced, but I don't work that way. I look at what happened, analyze it, and make an assessment as to what I think occurred that caused them to (in this case) change their proposed budget cuts from one figure, to another figure, to yet another figure over the course of several rounds of negotiations.

The core disagreement between us was not on the numbers along the way, but whether they arrived there are a result of negotiation and compromise (my argument) or the final number being what they really wanted all along (your argument). Let's recall that my argument was that compromising from 60B to 30B, with the 30B being entirely cuts from the GOP "side" was absurd, since they'd already arrived at that 60B number as a result of a previous compromise. They started wanting 100B, then compromised down to 60B, with each "side" agreeing to cut half of that from their own projects. The GOP showed up with 30B of cuts to stuff they wanted as their part of the agreement and the Dems just said "that's great. Let's just split the difference between the 60B you want and the 0B in cuts we want and just cut 30B. And look! You've already got a list of 30B in stuff that can be cut. Let's just cut that and call it a fair deal".

I was pointing out that this wasn't a fair deal. It was not ever about where I got my "news" from. We were both operating on the same set of facts. The difference is that I was looking at the pattern of change over time, while you were trying to just claim that the last round of numbers is all that mattered.

And honestly? This isn't really that important. It was an old argument. The real point is that obviously I do watch the news. Faced with that and a statement I made 6 years ago about "not getting my news from anywhere". a rational person should conclude that a literal interpretation of that statement must be incorrect, since it's so obviously contradicted by literally thousands of posts where I have directly referenced news sources in my posts. But lolgaxe choose to intentionally take the most absurd position and go with it.

Which is frankly just childish. I get that he's just trying to troll, but then what is the point? You all know that I'm more than willing to write walls of text in response, so it's not like it bothers me at all to repeatedly set the record straight. But in the same way that I think in terms of intent and process with things like budget negotiations, I also do so with posting style. And in this case it's a strange one. Not sure what he gets out of it, but he seems to keep doing it anyway. He knows that what he's posting is just BS, but he posts it anyway. Um... Ok. Whatever. I guess it's fine if he gets something out of it, but I'm going to respond to it each and every time and point out how silly he's being.

Edited, Jun 22nd 2017 8:05pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Jun 22 2017 at 9:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Except we were not arguing about facts and figures Joph. That's the point. Well, you may have, but that's because *you* were trotting off to various sites and just quoting what they said. What I was doing was arguing about the intent and purpose of the negotiations. I was pointing out (correctly btw), that the numbers you kept quoting were themselves compromise figures. And I pointed out (again correctly) that this number kept decreasing in each round of negotiations.

That was a good thread. I don't even need to sit here now and debate it with you since it's linked for everyone to see how it played out. It was a good thread.

Anyway, have fun jumping up and down and insisting what you're sure the gun maybe sorta maybe looked like kinda. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Jun 23 2017 at 2:25 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
Pretty clear I was saying that I'm not just going to some news source, taking them at face value, and repeating what they said.
Nope.

Pretty clear you were running with your classic "I obtain information from various sources and suss out exactly what the real answer is by virtue of my superior (200x!!!) intellect".

Nice try, though.

It's like...it's like you think nobody remembers what you wrote.




Again, lil buddy, TBI?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#63 Jun 23 2017 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
******
49,735 posts
gbaji wrote:
I get that he's just trying to troll, but then what is the point?
Why take responsibility for your contradictory and inconsistent writing when you can just yelp "troll!" and avoid any self examination and betterment?
gbaji wrote:
Whatever. I guess it's fine if he gets something out of it, but I'm going to respond to it each and every time and point out how silly he's being.
You'll say something stupid, I'll correctly assess why it's stupid, and you'll cry about trolling? That'll show everyone.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#64 Jun 23 2017 at 7:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Pretty clear I was saying that I'm not just going to some news source, taking them at face value, and repeating what they said.
Nope.

Pretty clear you were running with your classic "I obtain information from various sources and suss out exactly what the real answer is by virtue of my superior (200x!!!) intellect".

It wasn't even that much. He plainly stated that he wasn't getting factual information from anywhere but rather was just reacting to my use of information with "common sense". That's why he kept insisting that the numbers weren't real -- because he just didn't want to believe they were real. It was a bizarre display of deliberate ignorance.

And, of course, the actual deal settled exactly where all those "you're in a bubble parroting liberal media!!!" reports said it would settle. Fancy that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Jun 23 2017 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
******
49,735 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It was a bizarre display of deliberate ignorance.
I don't think it's deliberate. He's not really accustomed to dealing with people that are just smarter than him, since in his little suburb he can just avoid them.

Edited, Jun 23rd 2017 9:53am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#67 Jun 23 2017 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji's third grade teacher told him that he's the smartest in the world for figuring out division. TruFax
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69 Jun 23 2017 at 10:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
So I figured out at least one potential workaround for double posting: I hit Post, watch the tab "refresh" icon until it changes, then switch to another web page. If I close the Zam tab at that point instead of switching, sometimes it doesn't post at all; but if I switch it, then it seems to post and to post only one time.

Now watch it prove me wrong, the barstid.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#70 Jun 23 2017 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,567 posts
Why bother having *another* gun control debate thread when you can probably find at least a half dozen on the top few pages?

Other than the +1's, obviously.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#71 Jun 23 2017 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
Why bother having *another* gun control debate thread when you can probably find at least a half dozen on the top few pages?

We're not even having one. It's just Gbaji screaming at people from his cross.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Jun 23 2017 at 7:09 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
Isn't that how all of the other gun debate threads have gone as well though?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#73 Jun 23 2017 at 8:57 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Pretty clear I was saying that I'm not just going to some news source, taking them at face value, and repeating what they said.
Nope.

Pretty clear you were running with your classic "I obtain information from various sources and suss out exactly what the real answer is by virtue of my superior (200x!!!) intellect".


Um... Those two statements are not contradictory. I do obtain information from various sources and then derive my own conclusions based on that information. What I *don't* do is watch a news/opinion program about something, and then just blindly parrot whatever the talking head said. I'm not sure how you put a "nope" in between those two.

Which is why I always find it odd when I present my reasoning behind a position I hold, and someone demands a "source" to back it up. There is no source for it. It's my own reasoning. I can provide you sources to the data I'm using to base my conclusions, but I can only explain the reasoning and logic train itself by writing it out. The very demand for such a source suggests, however, that the person demanding it *does* assume that all conclusions can only be derived by having someone else tell them to you. Which suggests some pretty serious projection on their part.

In the thread in question, Joph's demands for where I was getting my news were not requests for the facts in question. We were not disagreeing on the facts at all. The numbers were the same. The only difference was what they meant. Which was a matter of opinion and not fact. In my opinion, the successive numbers represented a series of compromises by the GOP to the Dems over time and via negotiations. If the Dems had agreed on day one to 100B in cuts we would have had 100B in cuts. In Joph's opinion, the GOP never really wanted the cuts anyway, but was just pretending or something, and thus no one on the political Right should be bothered by the fact that it shrunk from 100B, to 60B in which half would be things the GOP would give up and half would be things the Dems would give up, to just the 30B that the GOP would have to give up. Joph was arguing that this was a fair deal, and I was arguing it was not.

Frankly, Joph's reasoning was pretty freaking bizarre, and didn't make a lick of sense. But there you have it. Again though, the relevant point is that despite his wording, he wasn't actually asking me for sources to news articles about the facts in question. What he was trying to do was get me to tell him what pundit I got my opinion from (and presumably what cable news show that rhymes with "box" I must slavishly watch in order to have such terribly silly ideas). Where did I read or hear that the GOP were the ones compromising while the Dems were not and that this was all pretty blatantly unfair and represented an entrenched opposition to even a relatively small decrease in government spending on their part? That's an opinion. If you have a source for it, it will be some op-ed, or pundit on a cable news show. Which is exactly what he was fishing for, because then he could dismiss my argument, not by countering the actual argument itself, but by dismissing the person it came from ("Oh yeah. We all know what a reliable source that person is <rolleyes>. Let me link to some other unrelated quote from the same person we can all laugh at").

Cause that's never been a tactic on this forum, right? Oh wait! It happens all the freaking time. Heck. It's happening right now. You do get that this entire line of discussion is a technique of dismissing my position on the subject at hand by pointing to something else I said in the past, labeling it stupid, laughable, or whatever, and thus by extension "proving" that my position in this thread must be wrong. It's attacking the person, not the argument. It's a weak argument, but an effective debating trick. And I get why people use it. It's easier to make fun of the other guy than to actually have to counter what he's saying. What I don't get is when it appears as though some people actually form their own positions or defend them by using this sort of tactic. If you have so little faith in your own position that you feel you have to engage in this sort of thing to defend it, then why do you hold that position in the first place?

It's just something that I always wonder about. Not the first time I've commented on this observation, and probably wont be the last. Call me an optimist, but I keep hoping that someone will read this, a light bulb will go off in their head, and they'll decide to change how they form their opinions themselves. Heck. I'm not even asking that folks agree with me. Just that they use better methods to decide what to agree with and what to disagree with.


Edited, Jun 23rd 2017 8:13pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Jun 23 2017 at 9:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Jophiel wrote:
He plainly stated that he wasn't getting factual information from anywhere but rather was just reacting to my use of information with "common sense".


I was not talking about factual information. One of the common methods of the Left is to re-label their opinions as "facts". You were doing the same thing here. There was not a single fact in that discussion that we disagreed on.

Quote:
That's why he kept insisting that the numbers weren't real -- because he just didn't want to believe they were real. It was a bizarre display of deliberate ignorance.


That's... interesting. Since we never disagreed about the numbers. We only disagreed on what the numbers meant.

Quote:
And, of course, the actual deal settled exactly where all those "you're in a bubble parroting liberal media!!!" reports said it would settle. Fancy that.


Wait? So what do you call a media "report" that is predicting what the outcome of a negotiation will be? "fact"? Or "opinion"? It's the latter, right?

It's just funny because you are still doing the same thing, obviously doing the same thing, but you just can't see it. You're blind to your own methodology. You probably can't see what Conway meant when she said "alternative facts" either. Heck. I know it, because the same exact "OMG! That's such a dumb thing to say because there's no such thing as alternative facts. yuk yuk yuk!" reaction rolled around the usual suspects in the media as a result. Um... What everyone outside the liberal bubble and mainstream media (which is inside that same bubble) understood was she was pointing out that what they were calling "facts" were not actually facts at all.

But that never occurred to you, because all you're looking for is something that appears contradictory or foolish and pouncing on it. It's an easy "gotcha" game to play, but not a terribly good method for making decisions. Which might just be one explanation for why the left has so steadily lost political ground in the US for the last couple decades. The political left spends all its time and effort on "gotcha", and has forgotten how to derive even semi-good policies, much less implement them in ways that the voters like. It's all about dismissing and deriding the right by using these sorts of tactics. But all they're accomplishing by this is showing people how little they really have to offer. And I suppose how petty and small they can be.


I would not be proud of that if I were you. It's not a winning approach in the long run.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Jun 23 2017 at 10:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
He plainly stated that he wasn't getting factual information from anywhere but rather was just reacting to my use of information with "common sense".
I was not talking about factual information.

Yeah, you were. I was saying "Hey, the initial estimate was X" and you'd say "Nuh UH! Was not! No Way!" and I'd say "Here's four articles talking about Ryan's initial estimate" and you'd basically just cover your ears and shout "Can't hear you!". That was the whole point of me asking because you kept insisting that basic factual information was wrong purely because it didn't match your "common sense" partisan alignment.
Quote:
Quote:
And, of course, the actual deal settled exactly where all those "you're in a bubble parroting liberal media!!!" reports said it would settle. Fancy that.
Wait? So what do you call a media "report" that is predicting what the outcome of a negotiation will be? "fact"? Or "opinion"? It's the latter, right?

I didn't say "predict", I said "said". As in, again, multiple sources saying "Ryan and Reid are closing in on a $33b agreement..." and I say "Hey, it sounds like Ryan & Reid are going to hit $33b" and you say "No way! Liberal bubble! Parroting the media!". Then it's $33b because who could have guessed that a Capitol Hill reporter would be more aware than an IT guy in San Diego with a bug up his ass about the scary liberal media and certain that he knows better.

Look, the whole thread was linked. It's kind of funny that this is still such a raw point with you that you have to try to rewrite history but everyone here has some basic level of literacy and can see for themselves.

Edited, Jun 25th 2017 2:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 72 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (72)