skinny21

@Tshile - Is it that posters are saying Reid didn't do anything?  I thought people were taking exception to the notion that the filibuster is dead (it's not yet), and if the GOP finalizes removal of the filibuster, then it's all Reid's fault.  That's like blaming Trump on Democrats.

Reid screwed up from what I can tell (even though I get his frustration).  If the GOP does their part, I'll feel the same about them.

 

53 minutes ago, thebluefood said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrat-introducing-bill-to-abolish-electoral-college/ar-AAkkFUW
 

Old news but worth sharing. Seems like a "statement" piece of legislation that won't go far (and, frankly, might backfire on Boxer and her Democratic colleagues as it will probably be seen as sour grapes).

The Electoral College is far from a perfect system but I don't think this will be enough to rid ourselves of it. If Election 2000 couldn't do it, I doubt this will.

Yeah, the "sour grapes" thing is concerning to me - you likely won't convince the necessary people with that attitude (even if it's a perception thing).

Does seem that Reid was a bit short-sighted regarding filibusters, even if I understand the frustration with obstruction.  Did this stem from Butts not getting appointed?  I'm fuzzy on the background.

 

How viable is campaign finance reform with the Citizen's United ruling?

There was a lot of interesting talk regarding redistricting in the election thread - I'd like to see Dems gain control of congress by 2020 and find a way to towards a bipartisan solution.  I'm not interested in swinging everything to the other extreme, but a level playing field (or as close as we can get) would be nice.

 

I'd also like to see less outrage from the left (even if I understand it) and the media, and more of an attempt at rational discussion.  Much of the GOP is obviously struggling with reason and I'd like the Dems to show America that they're the adults in the room.  Obama has been doing an ice job in this vein, though I suspect it's hard as hell for him.

Highly, highly recommend John Oliver's Last Week Tonight.

It's on HBO, but you can YouTube it.

True story...Gretchen began her career as a reporter for WRIC-TV here in Richmond.

True rumor...Gretchen had an affair with a married colleague at this station leading to the termination of both their employments.

What a waste, they should have made their continued employment contingent on airing their dirty laundry on the news. Imagine the ratings, people! The ratings!!

Being as both his parents are from the great City of L'pool, it's not hard to see where he get's his cutting, no B/S sense of humour from. .

He was great on 'Mock the Week' on the BBC before hitting it big Stateside. An improv. stand-up based off topical news items thrown at them. Funny show.

Hail.

What I like most about his show is the information he imparts and the passion he delivers. The humor is a great addition, but it's more the cherry on top for me. Oh, and I love the use of HBO's money for the "screw you" stunts.

Sorry, off topic a bit... though I recommend him to everyone (YouTube has the show divided up for those without HBO).

John Oliver got it spot in just before the vote:

One of the best things to come out of Britain in a long time. (that's intended as a compliment)

That's pretty much where I am. I think tighter regulations on "assault weapons" makes sense. But I want "assault weapons" defined as "semi automatic weapons which take removable magazines that hold more than six rounds".

(And I think we also know that California's laws won't work. At least not perfectly. Because they can't enforce their border. And people will point at that and claim that therefore we shouldn't try.)

Yeah, its my best attempt at trying to appease both sides. Nothing will be perfect, but this at least nullifies (or attempts to) the "good guy with a gun argument", the "someone may need a gun quickly for self defense", the idea that "they're coming for our guns", etc. I feel like if we can get many of those arguments out of the way, it makes the conversation marginally easier. An attempt at a middle ground that would probably piss off both extremes... which means we'd be on the right path, lol.

Edit: sorry, should have lumped this in with my previous post.

What would those "stringent regulations" be and what type of guns would they affect?

Dunno about the regulations really. Something that would at least moderately appease the gun control crowd - primarily aimed at trying to prevent mass shootings and criminals getting (at least certain) guns... some kind of fairly extensive background check and psychological eval.

Obviously the tricky part is 1) deciding how to work the evaluations, 2) how to pay for them and 3) getting congress and the general population to agree.

What I like about this idea is that it still allows ease of access, doesn't outright ban any guns, doesn't mess with concealed carry (and open carry) laws, doesn't affect ammo sales. On the other hand, in theory anyway, it works towards limiting the people with (hopefully fairly specific) mental issues from getting the type of guns typically used in mass shootings.

Obviously it would have to include a lot more details, but that's the gist of it. Does that make sense?

What do you think would be a logical step, regulation-wise, to trying to prevent those with anger, hate or resentment issues being able to get their hands on a gun that can fire a significant amount of bullets in a short time (and taking it out on innocents)?

Still think separating (currently legal) firearms into two categories makes sense. Extremely relaxed regulation for guns that don't hold clips, stringent regulation (and registration) for those that do.

No (currently legal) guns are banned. Someone who feels they need one suddenly for self defense (or sport) can get one quickly.

Of course, it would still run contrary to the interests of gun show sellers, but that can be worked around to some degree.

Never happen.

They won't take the Texans.

---

Wonder why only under 25? (No real opinion. Just assume that there's some information there that might be interesting.)

They'd definitely take the Texans - people abroad are fascinated by us.

As to the 25 mark, some studies have shown that people's brains (believe it was males in particular) have a portion of the brain that doesn't develop until around that age. If I recall, that portion is what tempers risk. It's a big reason for a push to change incarceration laws for offenders under 25.

I like that they're talking about finding recourse to getting off a watch list too - shows they (or some) are looking at both sides of the issue.

Really hope the GOP steps up on this one.

As the resident gun nut (at least I've been labeled a gun nut not by myself) I'd be mostly fine with that. I'd want handguns registered including revolvers. In exchange I'd want a limit on how long the waiting period can be for each. Say 5 working days for a "short waiting period" and 10 working days for the "long waiting period". After all, if I can get pulled over and the police can immediate find out I have a warrant in Alaska, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to check everything in 10 days. The mental health check part I'd need more details on. And all private party transactions must be filed with some agency to be set up. I think that's pretty good though.

EDIT: Would I have to do all that with EACH gun purchase? Only reason I ask is in Florida currently you get a check and then get issued your CCW. Once you have a CCW, you can walk in and buy with no waiting period. You have to renew your license and get rechecked every so often, 5 years if I remember correctly. Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

EDIT#2: I assume semi-auto shot guns would require the longer wait?

I'd be happy to lump all handguns, however, I could see someone arguing "what if someone suddenly feels the need for protection. Why should they have to wait?" Or some such. Also, and maybe more importantly, it may undermine the idea of how you're dividing the 2 types of guns.

Don't see a need to have a check for every purchase, you're right. Hesitant to set a timeframe for the waiting period (yet) - I think the professionals would need to decide how long it would reasonably take to conduct a thorough background check.

Good catch with the 2nd edit. Yes.

I can dig it as a compromise. I think there is a way (I don't know that I could do it) in dividing up weapons made primarily for defense and hunting versus those made for offense and mass killing.

I think you have a right to protect yourself or your family. I think you have the right to go hunting. I'm not sure you need the right to have the capability of murdering every citizen in your neighborhood. Someone long ago said that they like going to firing ranges with these high powered weapons because shooting them is a thrill. Maybe we could keep them stored there at these facilities... or have these types of weapons be part of a "well regulated militia" and the others at home.

Yeah, I mean it's such a divisive topic and although I personally may want more, I can understand the need to compromise. Do I think certain people are right to think they may need semi-autos in case the government oversteps its bounds (in a big way)? No, but I also don't want to alienate those people either... because I guess you never know. And alienating a segment of the gun owning population will make the conversation that much more difficult.

I might support that, though mental health check and such would need fleshing out.

what about the millions in circulation?....the majority of pistols now are semi-automatics

it would likely do next to nothing to prevent mass shootings though and restrictions such as that prompt buying sprees

Nothing seems a bit strong of a word there. It won't do nearly enough, I'm sure, but it's a compromise that I hope could make some small difference.

Don't know what to say regarding both mental health and buying sprees. Maybe there's something that could make a difference though. Really, it's about looking to the future - if a law like that passed, it would make it that much more difficult for a person (down the road) to get ticked off and a few days later be armed with a semi-auto in a crowded area.

I'm loathe to get into specifics like that though... both sides get into the "yeah, but what if..." that undermines any move forward.

As to the guns already out there, I don't know that either. Maybe they're grandfathered in but have to abide by the new law if they're sold? Tough to regulate that I'm sure, but it could be incentivized in some way I think.

I'll also add that the loopholes need to be closed as best as possible, selling multiple guns at the same time to one buyer needs to be looked at, the 1% of dealers that's always brought up need to be heavily examined, studies have to be allowed, and agencies (like the ATF) need to have fewer restrictions*.

* like being able to do their paperwork online, for example. My knowledge is insufficient to say much more than that though.

Bottom line is the idea of compromising. No one's gonna be thrilled with this type of legislation, but I'd hope both sides would agree that it's better than nothing. Better yet, I don't think either side really 'loses' in this scenario.

Curious what both sides (although it's really too nuanced to say there are only two sides) would say to something like this:

Revolvers, bolt action rifles and shotgun purchases are easy to buy (no need to register it, short waiting periods or whatever), while semi-autos - both pistols and rifles - are tougher to buy (longer wait periods, mental health check, more extensive background checks, get you on a national list or whatever).

Thoughts?

Another retread fired for losing GM is never a step in the right direction.

AJ Smith is the guy who thought Norv Turner was the guy his team needed in order to win last time. Good call there bro.

Gotta imagine every potential candidate has made a mistake at some point.

Lol.

Draft class looks pretty good? Breeland looks like a stud. Murphy has been decent, was a luxury pick. The 2 3rd rounders don't play/usually inactive, the 5th, 6th, and 7th rounders were cut. Those players should be your special teamers/depth.

What about his FA signings? Jackson just happened to fall to us since he was cut fairly late into the FA. Wey was a great pickup. Luavao was his #1 option and signing and he's playing as expected (a lowly rated guard). All those LBs the signed are nowhere contributing. Tracy Porter has been hurt (not surprising because he was hurt when they signed him). Ryan Clark, might as well be playing with 10 guys on defense with him. Roberts hasn't been any more productive than Hank from last season. Hatcher hasn't been what they expected. I just don't agree with signing a 32-year-old DL on a lucrative deal for a 3-13 team. That signing shows this FO lacks vision/plan. When you are 3-13, you should know you are 2-3 years away from actually competing so why bring in a old guy?

Right now, Danny boy and Allen are the biggest impediment to continual success for the once great franchise, Redskins.

I agree with your premise, but part of the reason the ILBs aren't contributing is that Compton stepped up. Well, that and Hayward went to IR. Also think you're a bit harsh on Clark - most of the big plays have been because the young guys aren't covering their zone. But yeah, Clark has not been much of a difference maker (apart from a few key stops).

Here's hoping Long and Moses step up in the offseason, though I hope the FO doesn't sit on their hands due to said 'hope'.

You can probably add Rambo to the WTH file.

Bob Costas to be on UP with Steve Kornacki momentarily: a preview has been mentioning our current name dilemma.

Hail!

Think I've heard enough expounding by Costas on the subject. Just one of the many reasons I miss the good old days, where media didn't broadcast (no pun intended) their bias.

My guess is that many view Morris as a product of the system.

My husband is on his way back into town, thanks for the ideas.

Lol! I sure hope you meant that the way I took it... 'cause that's awesome

Maybe this ain't the thread for it, but whose injuries had more of an impact in 2012, 'Skins or Cowpersons?

Haha, I knew I should have put a wink or something there!

I'm not in shell-shock about the Bears game or anything, but I'm a bit worried that our two (seemingly) biggest weaknesses make for bad matchups within our division. I expect this team to struggle as the young guys gel and get experience, but I certainly don't want to get swept in the division.

Don't get me wrong, I love the direction of the team (youth, speed, depth and competition), I just really don't want to get swept. Here's hoping things come together for the o-line and secondary. At least we'll have some time before the division games.

Some factors that make me question if Davis gets re-signed along with some counter points to show some objectivity):

Griffin didn't use his TE much at Baylor. By itself, this point doesn't have much merit because we run a different offense. I'm assuming Griffin didn't have a pass-catching TE of Davis' caliber either. Added to my next points however, I think this does have merit.

Davis has had a quiet camp. It's only practice, and the team has apparently spent a bunch of time on the spread concepts that Griffin is accustomed to from Baylor. Which goes back to the first point.

Davis had a quiet first preseason game. I know, I know, it's just one game.

Davis' blocking is suspect

He's likely to command a hefty contract.

The TE blocking is quite important to our run scheme. Thanks to LL for posting the Gibbs videos.

Having Paul means we already have a guy at TE that should create similar mismatches that Davis provides, but is a much more willing/adept blocker. Too early to tell, and his drops last week didn't help his case.

There aren't many positions on the team that badly need reinforcing, so focusing on a talented, better blocking TE is possible in next years draft. RT is an obvious need.. assuming one of our guys doesn't step up big-time.

Obviously, if the Paul experiment fails, Davis improves his blocking, or there is no such TE (draft or FA) then I think Davis definitely gets re-signed. I also think I can see why the team hasn't cut Cooley yet.

Can I please get a PM??? Stuck in the south...

Ditto! PM would be great!